Hi Mehdi and Neil, Thank you for your comments, I will try to address them at the meeting. I would like to clarify that SV-AC did not officially vote about conducting this meeting, therefore formally speaking the meeting was initiated by me as a private person. I thought that this meeting was very important, and I wanted to take advantage of my BT to US to organize it. Of course I welcome other SV-AC members to join the meeting and to participate in the discussions. My comments regarding the checker proposal reflect my own understanding, though this understanding should be consistent with the contents of the proposal, and this proposal has been approved by SV-AC. Thanks, Dmitry -----Original Message----- From: owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Mehdi Mohtashemi Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 10:12 AM To: Korchemny, Dmitry Cc: sv-ec@server.eda.org; sv-ac@server.eda.org; Levy, Yossef (DT); john.havlicek@freescale.com Subject: [sv-ec] and [sv-ac] Checkers, and mantis items 2088,2089 Hi Dimitry, and SV-AC members, As you have initiated a review meeting this coming Monday, we wanted to provide a summary of the discussion that took place during our SV-EC conference call on Monday March 3 2008. Our SV-EC committee conducted an email ballot on mantis items 2088 and 2089 based on a request from SV-AC (John had sent the formal request). These mantis items did not pass during email vote as you are aware, there were many discussions on the reflector on the subject. We then had placed 2088/2089 on SV-EC meeting agenda for Monday March 3 2008 and attempted to vote on them. Below we summarize the feedback from SV-EC to SV-AC. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Mantis 2088, 2089 - from SV-AC committee At the meeting both Gordon and Arturo stated that they were now ok with the latest proposals for both of these Mantis items. The changes made by Tom addressed their concerns. Following concerns were raised: - There are concerns about checkers in general. - With respect to Checker instantiations in procedural code naming conventions (including cross-module references) forces semantics is binding allowed? General feeling was that the rules for all of these need definition. - The assertions within checkers seem to be a new class of assertions. They are not concurrent nor immediate. - There appear to now be 4 types of assertions. Concurrent, immediate, deferred, those inside checkers. - It could be difficult to deal with all four. - Checkers can now have untyped formals. This creates new situations as to when certain information becomes available. - Coverage on a freevar seems to now be allowed. This type of coverage appears to be unreliable. Does the simulator just select one of the possible values? Freevars in a simulation environment are very different from a freevar in a formal tool. - Checkers are adding several new keywords that could clash with the names of existing variables. Attempt to vote on approving the proposal for Mantis 2088 failed, here is the details: Move: Arturo - approve the proposal for Mantis item 2088 Second: Steven Abstain: Gordon Ray - not against the proposal for Mantis item 2088 Steven - wants the whole group of checker proposals to be reviewed by the SV-EC as a group. Francoise - not sure how the coverage will be calculated Opposed: Cliff, Don, Heath, Dave Rich - same reason as Steven (Stu - would have also voted no if he had voting rights.) In Favor: Arturo, Neil, Mark Hartoog, David Scott 12 attendees with voting rights were on-line. Motion failed: 4-yes,4-no,4-abstains More discussion continued after the above vote was concluded. Some of the feedback from the SV-AC on questions raised on 2088 and 2089 was to look at the proposals from other SV-AC Mantis items. Some SV-EC meeting participants felt that a larger group of SV-AC mantis items should be reviewed as a group; that is a whole set of Mantis items that pertain to checkers should be reviewed as a group instead of trying to review 2088 and 2089 in isolation. Their concern is with checkers in general and not with 2088 and 2089 in particular. The following list was proposed (although there may be others): 1900, 1549, 1681, 1648, 1728, 1682, 2088, 2089 Some of the statements and concerns by attendees: There is a concern that checkers are crossing over into the rest of the language. When the proposals from the SV-AC are contained within the area of assertions, there is less of a concern. For some of the changes being made a cross-committee group would have been more appropriate. Procedural code seemed to have had created a particular concern. There appears to be disagreement within the SV-EC as to whether checkers are part of the procedural code or not. Although some members are concerned that there are issues that need to be addressed but aren't sure yet. They are looking for a way to be convinced that there are no additional issues that need to be addressed. The members who voted No and abstained felt that if these issues are not addressed now they are likely to show up as a ballot issue and at that point in time there will be less flexibility in how to address them. There appears to be a concern that more of a synthesis-centric viewpoint is leading these proposals in SV-AC. In general having others review the proposals in detail would be useful. Mehdi and Neil March 5 2008 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ------ -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel Israel (74) Limited This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Thu Mar 6 00:25:23 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Mar 06 2008 - 00:27:07 PST