RE: [sv-ec] Request to review ballot issues, Meeting Minutes April 13, 2009, Action Items

From: Swapnajit Chakraborti <swapnaj_at_.....>
Date: Thu Apr 16 2009 - 07:27:41 PDT
Hi All,
 
Following are some queries/clarification from my side on ballot comments
with ids [104-118], [121], [122] which are related to coverage. I have
included committe's responses (as found in meeting minutes) for
reference and followed it up with my comment [SC]. Please note that I
have excluded the editorial comments for which relevant actions have
already been taken. My comments/clarification on those items in this
set, which are currently assigned to Francoise, are based on my
discussion with her.
 
In addition to these items, I have also raised couple of other issues
which I believe needs to be addressed.
 
Regds,
Swapnajit

   175       - id 105
   David S.  - not sure why nets and wires need to be mentioned.
   Dave      - passing by ref might be the issue. 
   Francoise - we can't do coverage of wires, it appears 
   Steven    - a wire is an expression.
   Stu       - the wording could cause problems.  
   Dave      - see Mantis 1575 

  AI: David Scott - row 175, id 105, follow-up, non-trivial 
 
[SC] I had filed this earlier in mantis 1575 as a logical enhancement.
Is there any specific reason for not including this? The values in
nets/wires
[SC] may be integral which users may want to sample directly by writing
coverpoints for them.

   176       - id 106
   David     - the answer is "nothing"

  AI: David Scott - row 176, id 106, follow-up, maybe trivial 
 
[SC] I think we can capture it in the mentioned para of the section. A
simple statement, that a warning for "output", "inout" may be generated,
should suffice.
[SC] Is it possible that covergroups will be required to modify values
in near future? If that is not the case, a warning will be perfectly
fine.
[SC] In this context, I would like to raise two more issues- (1) We
should warn if formal arguments are used as "bin_identifier" (2) Can
"input" arguments
[SC] be used in coverpoint expression? LRM is silent on these. Please
let me know your thoughts.


   177       - id 107
   David     - this is actually an ambiguous situation
     - he would like this to be true

  AI: David Scott - row 177, id 107, follow-up, non-trivial 

[SC] My intent of putting this comment was to clarify the "scope" of
formal arguments. If you specify formal in cloking event,
[SC] we mean that when a change occurs in the formal the covergroup
should sample. That essentially means that when the
[SC] corresponding actual changes, it should sample. This looks quite
logical to me, unless I am missing something. 

   179       - 109 
   Arturo    - expects this to be trivial, unless we don't understand it
   Jonathan  - blocking event triggering issue?

  AI: Francoise - row 179, id 109; try to get more information 
 
[SC] I have discussed this with Francoise and "no action" is fine with
me. Basically
[SC] a runtime error will be generated for non-existent object.

   180       - 110
   Dup of 175, id 105

  AI: David - row 180, id 110;  make sure it is a duplicate
 
[SC] Yes, this is duplicate. I forgot to remove this while submitting
the comments.


   181       - id 111
   David S.  - this would add another wierd special case. 
   Neil      - an enhancement request
   Don       - spreadsheet doesn't say it must be addressed
   Steven    - backward compatability issue if we make the change

   AI: Francoise - row 181, id 111; get more clarification.
       David & Arturo to help.
 
[SC] I discussed with Francoise and "no action" is fine with me. 

 
   183       - id 113
   David     - it appears to be editorial

   AI: David - row 183, id 113, follow-up, trivial. 
 
[SC] I believe this is purely editorial. You can just verify the text
that I have provided.


   184       - id 114
   David     - this section tends to not define terms well, but he
thought
       that this sentence was clear, in context.
   Arturo    - state bins not defined (they are those bins that are
transitions)
   David     - he is inclined to not fix it. 
   Arturo    - maybe just removing the word "state" would work. 

   AI: Arturo - row 184, id 114, put a proposal together; non-trivial
there will be other places that would need to be touched
 
[SC] I agree with Arturo here. My intention of putting this comment was
that we should not highlight "state" bin.
[SC] So, solution could be just removing "state" keyword.


   185       - id 115
   Arturo    - no fix is required... Doesn't understand the problem 
   David     - understands the paragraph 

   AI: Mehdi - row 185, id 115; no change needed
 
[SC] After loking at committe's comment I gave a second thought on this.
[SC] Now, I believe, I understand the intent of the para.
[SC] But, still, I believe we need to modify the language here or
clarify the example to avoid misunderstanding.
[SC] For example, what LRM is trying to say is last bin will have "up to
N-1" items and not values.
[SC] So, in this case, the last bin has by default 2 items namely <4,5>.
It also has remaining 2 items <6,7> and
[SC] LRM is trying to say the number of remaining items will be "up to
N-1". I believe that is the real intent here.  But I believe we should
[SC] explain this. So, a change in language is required. If you agree I
can work on the change.


   186       - id 116
   David S.  - will require changes

   AI: David, Gord - row 186, id 116; follow-up. non-trivial 

[SC] My intention here was to clarify the intent here. Should we just
put some qualifier for wildcard bins?


   190       - id 121

   AI: David - row 190, id 121; follow-up, non-trivial.
 
[SC] Isn't this just an editorial change? I am little confused because
you mentioned it as "non-trivial". Am I missing something here?






________________________________

	From: owner-sv-ec@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org] On Behalf
Of Mehdi Mohtashemi
	Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 10:51 AM
	To: sv-ec@eda.org
	Subject: [sv-ec] Request to review ballot issues, Meeting
Minutes April 13, 2009, Action Items
	Importance: High
	
	

	The ballot issues were reviewed in today's sv-ec ballot
resolution meeting.

	The following is the list of issues which were identified as
being non-trivial.

	[also specified in Minutes]

	Issues that may not be trivial: 

	    row number, id number

	 1.   130       21

	 2.   143      188

	 3.   146      47

	 4.   147      181

	 5.   149      49  - expect it to have a difference of opinion

	 6.   150      50

	 7.   151      51

	 8.   156      55  - requires some discussion

	 9.   167      183

	10.   172      189

	11.   173      190

	12.   175      105

	13.   177      107

	14.   181      111

	15.   184      114

	16.   186      116

	17.   190      121

	18.   192      120

	19.   197      192

	 

	1) Please review the above items along with other sv-ec related
issues, 

	and their description in the ballot resolution spreadsheet [
sent out in the previous 

	meeting's agenda] and send in your input as to the feasibility
of resolving these 

	issues by May 14 2009.  

	If this is not achievable by the above date, please indicate
your estimate of time that 

	is required to address and resolve the issues. 

	We would need this answer no later than Wednesday April 15,
11:30am PST, to 

	prepare for p1800WG meeting on Thursday this week.

	 

	2) Minutes of April 13 2009 meeting is uploaded on the sv-ec
site:

	
http://www.eda.org/sv-ec/Minutes/SV-EC_Meeting_April_13_2009_Minutes.txt


	 

	3) Here is the Action Item list from today's meeting related to
the ballot issues:

	[also appended in Meeting minutes]

	===========   Action item list provided for sv-ec
===================
	===========        from April 13 2009 meeting
===================
	  AI: Mehdi - conduct an email vote on the trivial
items.[requires proposals]
	  AI: Steven - row 128, id 20; put together a proposal,  mantis
2634
	  AI: Steven - row 130, id 21, will gather some input on this. 
	  AI: Dave - row 131, id 184; put together a proposal.
	  AI: Arturo - row 132, 133,  id 30 & 31; write it up, both 132
and 133
	  AI: Stu  - row 134, id 35; writeup a proposal 
	  AI: Jonathan - combine rows 135-139 [ids: 36-40] into one
mantis item.
	  AI: Dave - row 140, id 186; put together a proposal.
	  AI: Dave      - row 141, id 43;  put together a proposal for
this
	  AI: Jonathan - row 142, id 44; will put together a proposal.
	  AI: Dave - row 143, id 188; will look into 141, 144
	  AI: Dave - row 144, id 45; combine this  with row 141, id 43
	  AI: Stu - row 145, id 46; will write a proposal 
	  AI: Dave - row 147, id 181; follow-up on thisfor now 
	  AI: Gord - row 149, id 49  [not here, but on his list to
discuss/review]
	  AI: Francoise - row 150, id 50; will follow-up for now
	  AI: Francoise & Gord   - row 151, id 51; will follow-up for
now 
	  AI: Francoise - row 152, id 52; will follow-up
	  AI: Francoise - row 153, id 67; will look at it. 
	  AI: Francoise - row 154, id 53; will follow-up. 
	  AI: Francoise - row 156, id 55; will follow-up, non-trvial
	  AI: Cliff - row 157, id 57; put together a proposal
	  AI: Dave - row 158, id 182; follow-up, proposal, maybe
trivial.
	  AI: Mehdi - row 159, id 58; editoral, assign to editor.
	  AI: Gord -  row 160, id 59;  related to id 50.
	  AI: Mehdi - row 160, id 60; editoral, assign to editor
	  AI: Mehdi - row 162, id 61; editoral, assign to editor
	  AI: Gord, & Francoise  - rows 163-166, id [59-62]; to
follow-up. 
	  AI: Dave  - row 167, id 183; follow-up, non-trivial
	  AI: Mehdi - row 168, id 80; proposal exists, add to email vote
	  AI: Mehdi - row 169, id 81; send to sv-ac;  sv-ec has no
change to recommend.
	  AI: Mehdi - row 170, id 101; send to sv-ac 
	  AI: Ray - row 171, id 102; put together a proposal
	  AI: Dave - row 172, id 102; follow-up, nontrivial
	  AI: Dave  - row 173, id 190; follow-up, nontrivial
	  AI: Mehdi - row 174, id 104; assign to editor.
	  AI: David Scott - row 175, id 105, follow-up, non-trivial 
	  AI: David Scott - row 176, id 106, follow-up, maybe trivial 
	  AI: David Scott - row 177, id 107, follow-up, non-trivial 
	  AI: Mehdi - row 178, id 108; assign to editor.
	  AI: Francoise - row 179, id 109; try to get more information 
	  AI: David Scott - row 180, id 110;  make sure it is a
duplicate
	  AI: Francoise - row 181, id 111; get more clarification.
	  AI: Mehdi - row 182, id 112, assign to editor
	  AI: David Scott - row 183, id 113, follow-up, trivial. 
	  AI: Arturo - row 184, id 114, put a proposal together;
non-trivial
	  AI: Mehdi - row 185, id 115; no change needed
	  AI: David Scott , Gord - row 186, id 116; follow-up.
non-trivial 
	  AI: Mehdi - row 187, id 117; assign to editor
	  AI: Mehdi - ro2 188, id 118; assign to editor
	  AI: Mehdi - ro2 189, id 119; assign to editor
	  AI: David Scott- row 190, id 121; follow-up, non-trivial.
	  AI: Mehdi - row 191, id 122; assign to editor
	  AI: Arturo - row 192, id 120, follow-up, non-trivial.
	  AI: Mehdi - row 193, id 134; send it to the sv-bc
	  AI: Mehdi - row 194, id 135; send it to the sv-bc (duplicate
of id 134)
	  AI: Mehdi - row 195, id 137; assign to editor
	  AI: Dave - row 196, id 185; follow-up, trivial. 
	  AI: Dave - row 197, id 192; follow-up, non-trivial.

	 

	 

	 


	-- 
	This message has been scanned for viruses and 
	dangerous content by MailScanner <http://www.mailscanner.info/>
, and is 
	believed to be clean. 


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Received on Thu Apr 16 07:30:24 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Apr 16 2009 - 07:31:08 PDT