Here is the unapproved minutes of Today's meeting (April 11th, 2005). The next meeting is scheduled for tomorrow, Tuesday April 12th, 2005 time: 2:00pm-4:00pm PST. Please note that we have tentatively set Friday April 15th, 8:00am to 10:00 am (PST) for possible conf. call meeting in order to resolve the remaining issues. I appreciate the time everyone is putting in given so many meetings of various committees. I will place the minutes on the web shortly. - Mehdi --------------------------------------------------------------- Action items: (4/11/2005) 1) Issue 250 (Mantis- 636): Ray to place updated proposal on SVDB. 2) Issue 252 (Mantis- 637): Ray to place updated proposal on svdb. 3) Issue 229 (Mantis- 644): Dave update proposal on svdb. 4) Issue 230 (Mantis- 646): Dave update proposal on svdb. 5) Issue 232 (Mantis- 652): Gordon to create a new proposal/svdb. 6) Issue 233 (Mantis- ? ): Surrendra to ask svac chair for clarifications. ============== SUMMARY of action items and issue items ============ == Approved issues === on April 11, 2005: Issues approved: 250 ( Mantis- 636 ) [approved on 4/5/05, re-approved 4/11/05] 252 ( Mantis- 637 ) [approved on 4/5/05, re-approved 4/11/05] 229 ( Mantis- 644 ) 230 ( Mantis- 646 ) 163 ( Mantis- 554 ) [one abstain -- Neil, (not read)] 255 ( Mantis- 641 ) [one abstain -- Neil, (not read)] on April 5, 2005: 11 ( Mantis- 410 ) 109 ( Mantis- 537 ) 161 ( Mantis- 550 ) 237 ( Mantis- 616 ) 250 ( Mantis- 636 ) 251 ( Mantis- 643 ) 252 ( Mantis- 637 ) 253 ( Mantis- 649 ) [combined with 254 into one Mantis (649) 254 ( Mantis- 649 ) [2 abstains: Francoise & Steven, no knowledge of coverage] 270 ( Mantis- 638 ) 271 ( Mantis- 639 ) [one abstain: Steven, not read the proposal] 272 ( Mantis- 640 ) 283 ( Mantis- 615 ) [Votes: 4 yes(Brad,Neil,Dave, Surrendra), & Mehdi 3 abstain:(Ray,Francoise, Steven), and 1 No (cliff)] Issues marked not feasible 204 Issues sent to other committees for review: 125 --> sv-cc 229 --> sv-bc (the first portion) [NOTE: here is what sv-ec received on 229 from yesterday's sv-bc meeting: The SV-BC reviewed the proposal to address issue 229 in its April 11th meeting. It was not approved. Here's the message that the committee agreed to convey to the EC: The SV-BC did not pass the proposed resolution to issue 229 as captured in Mantis #644. The motion failed with only abstention. Those abstaining felt that making such a change so late in the lifecycle of the LRM was not a good idea. They had concerns about issues such as: -continuous assignment to variables -initializer passed with with Type through parameters which is a new paradigm. -------------------------------------------------------------- ================================== == Issues not yet resolved ======= Negative / High -----Issue # -- Mantis # ------ 232 652 233 235 236 238 & (together) 189 596 240 Positive / High 281 Negative 266 (NoTES) Negative / High -- Issue # --- Mantis # ------ 255 Positive High -- Issue # --- Mantis # ------ 2 5 7 8 10 13 22 23 24 30 31 551 32 553 36 270 94 511 95 512 96 516 97 518 98 519 99 521 100 522 101 523 Positive / Low -- Issue # --- Mantis # ------- 122 251 123 253 162 552 171 564 187 594 188 595 190 597 199 607 200 608 201 609 Issues sent to sv-ec from other committees 1 from sv-bc 244 from sv-bc ------------------------------------------------------ The SV-BC approved the proposal in Mantis issue 632 and believes this resolves ballot issue 244. The SV-BC also believe that the SV-EC should review the issue & its resolution in case it conflicts with SV-EC requirements. For issue 244, the feedback was: "Currently, the actuals of interface ports are not restricted in terms of hierarchical references to interface instantiations. This can cause problems similar to other circular elaboration dependencies with generates that IEEE-1364 very carefully avoids." And the proposed addition to the LRM forbids interface port actuals from being hierarchical references through arrays of intances or generated instances: At the end of 20.2, ADD If the actual of an interface port connection is a hierarchical reference to an interface or a modport of a hierarchically referenced interface, the hierarchical reference shall refer to an interface instance and shall not resolve through an arrayed instance or a generate block. The SV-BC thought the SV-EC should know about such a restriction. Would you please run this by the EC? ------------------------------------------------------ ==== Issues sent to other committees for review ==== 125 294 (sv-ac) (vpi question) 229 644 (sv-bc) (struct initialization) =============================================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Apr 11 2005 - 23:21:57 PDT