[sv-ec] Minutes of today's meeting


Subject: [sv-ec] Minutes of today's meeting
From: David W. Smith (dwsmith@synopsys.com)
Date: Mon Mar 01 2004 - 12:46:47 PST


Greetings,

Here are the minutes of today's meeting. They have been posted at the normal spot.

Regards

David

SV-EC Meeting Minutes

1 March 2004 9:00 am. Wednesday

 

(rrrrrrrrrrxrxrxrrrrrr)

Voting Members (3/4 or > 75%)

(aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa) Arturo Salz (Synopsys)

(-aaaaaaaaaaaa-aaaa-aa) Brad Pierce (Synopsys)

(aaaaa-aaaa-aaaaaaa-aa) Dave Rich (Synopsys)

(aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa) David Smith (Synopsys)

(-aaa-aaa-a-aap-p-aa--) Dennis Brophy (ModelTech)

(aaaaapaaaaaa-aaaaa-a-) Jay Lawrence (Cadence)

(aaa-aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa) Michael Burns (Motorola)

(-aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa) Mehdi Mohtashemi (Synopsys)

(aa-aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa-) Neil Korpusik (Sun)

(--aaaaaaaaaaaaa--aaaa) Ray Ryan (ModelTech)

 |||||||||||||||||||||_ 1 March

 ||||||||||||||||||||__ 2 February

 |||||||||||||||||||___ 21 January

 ||||||||||||||||||____ 5 January

 |||||||||||||||||_____ 15 December

 ||||||||||||||||______ 8 December

 |||||||||||||||_______ 1 December

 ||||||||||||||________ 24 November

 |||||||||||||_________ 17 November

 ||||||||||||__________ 11 November

 |||||||||||___________ 3 November

 ||||||||||____________ 27 October

 |||||||||_____________ 20 October

 ||||||||______________ 13 October

 |||||||_______________ 29 September

 ||||||________________ 15 September

 |||||_________________ 2 September

 ||||__________________ 18 Aug

 |||___________________ 4 Aug

 ||____________________ 21 July

 |_____________________ 7 July

 

Non-Voting Members (attendance based)

(------a--------------) Chris Spear (Synopsys)

(--aaaa-aaa---a-aaa---) Cliff Cummings (IEEE 1364)

(-------------s-s-----) Doug Warmke (ModelTech)

(-----s---------------) Francoise Martinolle (Cadence)

(--a-aaa-a------------) Jeff Freedman (ModelTech)

(-----------a---------) Peter Flake

(---------------a-----) Ron Goodstein (First Shot Logic Simulation and Design)

(---a-----------aa--aa) Stefen Boyd (IEEE 1364)

(-a---a----------aa---) Stu Sutherland (IEEE 1364)

 

Guests (non-voting)

(--a-a-a----------a---) Don Mills (LCDM Engineering)

(-----a---------------) James Young (HP)

(-a-------------------) Kevin Cameron (National)

 

r => Regular meeting

x => Extra meeting (Presence counts for attendance, absence does not)

 

a => Attended

p => Attended by proxy

s => Attended as proxy

- => Missed

 

Action Items:

    [identified with AI (#) in this text, # refers to AI number]

    Added this week (please see the site for existing action items):

 

    Michael: Write up on proposal on failure/final block issue

    Arturo: Write up proposal on handling strings

 

Minutes 3/1/04 taken by Mehdi Mohtashemi

 

1. Review of the meeting minutes

    http://www.eda.org/sv-ec/Minutes/SV-EC-Minutes-2004-February-2.txt

 

    Motion: Accept Minutes of 2 February

    Correction: Brad abstained due to not being at the meeting and not due

     to not having read them.

    Moved: Ray

    Second: Arturo

    Abstain: None

    Opposed: None

    Passed

 

2. Review of LRM Milestones

    Vote on LRM between March 10 and March 15. Corporate vote.

    Draft 5 plus any changes on the web site.

    Draft 6 (March 15) will include these changes. Limited changes from Draft 5.

    Final LRM (April 15) will be draft 6 plus editorial clean-up.

 

    All changes will go through committee chairs before LRM change created.

 

    Any extra errata will be released as errata to approved LRM.

 

    David: All reviewers have completed their work. For the next week we want

     to return to our well-structured process. Forward any errata to the

     committe and the committee chairs will forward the changes for

     incorporation in the draft 6. After draft6, cleaned up version to

     be sent to chairs and TCC for voting.

 

3. Review Errata list

    Failure and Final block question from Shalom

     Need clarification on $fatal and $finish.

 

    David: Is the above issue closed or resovled (the final block question)?

    Michael: I am not sure what the circumstances are for execution of

     final block.

     Where is the boundry between executed and not? Also the enumeration of

     all conditions is not necessarily good.

    Dave: Some have been added from assertions, such as $fatal from assertion,

     you may not want to have it called.

    Arturo: That is ambiguity in LRM, is it always called, or does it get

     called in the circumstances there. For coverage, fatal error

     coverage does not matter there maybe other reasons for final

     block gets called.

    David: Now it is only 4 cases, worded as exhaustive list.

    Dave: In assertion $fatal causes simulation to end.

    Arturo: $finish will be called from $fatal.

    Michael: User wants to end the simulation once an error is encountered.

    David: Anyone want to clear this ambiguity?

    Michael: I will take it, clarify in an LRM change and send it.

 

    David: Two issues, one ambiguity, the second is about the exhaustive list;

     do we need to change it.

    Brad: Do we agree that $fatal calls $finish?

    David: $fatal, on page 202, in 17.2 states that it stops simulation.

    Brad: It says it terminates it with error code.

    Arturo: It could be as simple as stating that $fatal does call $finish,

     also final blocks always get called when simulation ends.

    David: If suspended, would it be called.

    Arturo: No, it is suspended.

    Ray: $finish needs to be called when simulation ends. is there any other

     point?

    Arturo: The event queue is empty,

    Brad: Each final block calls $finish. $finish, executes all final block.

    Arturo: It triggers it.

    Michael: For $exit, it would make sense to do it, unless it was the last

     $exit, if you have multiple program block.

    Dave: That is what the spec says, upon termination of program blocks.

    David: We have to make sure the conditions do actually happen.

     No other place that statement is made, for example when an event queue

     is empty do we have an implicit $finish is called.

     Michael will take this.

 

    ERR-77: (Brad Pierce) Inside/intersect errataum (BNF)

    Brad: Inside an intersect both take a list requiring {}, currently {} is

     put on by inside and the list itself and not intersect.

 

     Motion: Accept ERR-77 proposal

     Moved: Brad

     Second: Arturo

     Abstain: None

     Opposed: None

     Passed

 

    ERR-78: (Arturo Salz) coverage event BNF erratum

    David: Clocking identifiers replaced by clocking event.

     Motion: Accept ERR-77 proposal

     Moved: Arturo

     Second: Brad

     Abstain: None

     Opposed: None

     Passed

 

4. LRM Review

    Ray: At the same time we were reviewing previous erratas, Dave send email

     on string changes. It was not in the same category.

    Dave: It was mostly editorial changes,

    David: Like, character, there was no character in the language.

    Ray: The other thing, assign a packed-array to string, do nulls get

     replaced with blank. $display does this. a packed data type had

     string "a", it will be 00..a, when you assign them to string, what

     would it be?

    Arturo: String will be the same as well.

    Ray: Since $display does something different, I thought this would

     be different. It is not clear.

    David: There is a difference between packing, you may not want all

     the leading 0s.

    Ray: Null is not a character.

    David: Null is ...

    Ray: When you assign from string to packed array, there is no conversion.

    Arturo: Yes. You may want to print them differently.

    Ray: Does $display print the string with blanks?

    Dave: It is not specified, for backward compatibilty,

    Ray: Errata, for packed types.

    Brad: Which do you get when you do not use the format?

    Dave: All existing fileI/O should be updated to deal with strings.

    Ray: In the LRM it states that string literal is packed data type.

    Arturo: But it is interpreted as data type.

    David: If it is open to interpretation, it needs to be specified.

    Arturo: I am suggesting for any fileI/O, formalize that string shall be

     viewed as string literal.

    David: Can you have a dynamic string on reading? Do we need to support

     anything on this, is there a need to?

    Arturo: If you do, then it would be a conversion from reg to string.

    David: The difference is dynamic vs static. It is an enhancement if we go

     that route. We will leave it as this, try to add clarification to

     LRM.

 

    The following are the LRM changes from SV-EC:

 

     Text Related:

     201, 202, 203, 212, 252, 254, 259,

     261, 262, 263, 265, 268, 269, 274, 276, 279

 

    File-io needs updating for SV data types.

 

     BNF Related:

     207, 229, 248, 249, 250, 251, 253, 255, 256, 267, 271, 273,

 

    Brad: Do we need to go through LRM and compare fixes between what is on

     the website and actually done.

    David: I have been through it, every section I went back and reviewed

     against what was on the website.

 

5. Next Meeting

    Next meeting scheduled for Monday March 15, 2004 from 11:00am until 1:00pm.

  

6. Meeting adjourned at: 11:59 am.




This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Mar 01 2004 - 22:44:40 PST