SV-EC Meeting Minutes 2 February 2004 9:00 am. Wednesday (rrrrrrrrrrxrxrxrrrrr) Voting Members (3/4 or > 75%) (aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa) Arturo Salz (Synopsys) (-aaaaaaaaaaaa-aaaa-a) Brad Pierce (Synopsys) (aaaaa-aaaa-aaaaaaa-a) Dave Rich (Synopsys) (aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa) David Smith (Synopsys) (-aaa-aaa-a-aap-p-aa-) Dennis Brophy (ModelTech) (aaaaapaaaaaa-aaaaa-a) Jay Lawrence (Cadence) (aaa-aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa) Michael Burns (Motorola) (-aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa) Mehdi Mohtashemi (Synopsys) (aa-aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa) Neil Korpusik (Sun) (--aaaaaaaaaaaaa--aaa) Ray Ryan (ModelTech) ||||||||||||||||||||_ 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--a) 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): AI-55 (Neil): Review cross references for accuracy AI-56 (Brad): Review cross references for accuracy AI-57 (Ray/Brad): Deal with randomize statement BNF Minutes 2/2/04 taken by Mehdi Mohtashemi 1. Review of the meeting minutes http://www.eda.org/sv-ec/Minutes/SV-EC-Minutes-2004-January-21.txt Motion: Accept Minutes of 21 January Moved: Neil Second: Arturo Abstain: Brad (not read) Opposed: None Passed 2. Review of open Action Items All closed 3. Review of Inter-committee dependencies All closed 4. Review Errata list David: New items, 5 LRM erratas thad did not go throug the committee, need to make sure they are ok. From Vassilios email, erratta being editorial, no need to go through committee process. They are all open, purely editorial nature. The others are change of content and need more discussion before they get into the LRM. The chairs would make that decision. Any thing that does not get into the LRM will be in errata. Proposals: LRM-191: Neil will review in Draft 4 LRM-192 Brad will review in Draft 4 LRM-193 Change to remove process from static. Michael: We should include class members in the paragraph. David: In 5.5, Dave suggested to remove in the process in that paragraph. Michael: Is this in new draft LRM? Neil: Down at the bottom. David: If you download draft4. Michael: Do we mention it here that member function and tasks are automatic functions or tasks. David: First question is: applies to member functions and tasks. The second question is do we need to clarify for automatic. Michael: Maybe we can say in (automatic ) Jay: Are tasks and functions automatic by default? David: Yes it is, even if it is, there is another section detailing the default behaviour. Michael: With always initial, do you mean names? Jay: You can creat automatic variables there now. David: Any scope is automatic by some mechanism. Scope is local to the block, any block. Instead of having to enumerate all, is there a generic term. Dave: Functions/tasks are the only place where you can declare scope to be automtic. Brad: Modules and interfaces too. Dave: No, in modules have to be non-automatic. Jay: For always/initial blocks what is the use of it. Arturo: We can declare a module to have automatic life, with LRM correction on that. I think it was Dave who suggested that. Dave: What if we say, ...in a automatic block such as a tasks/functions. Michael: To enumerate all the automatic scopes here would not be necessary. Arturo: This is an informative section. David: 5.5 is not informative section. Data declared to be static in automatic block, such as a task/function, has scope of life-time staitic life-time in the scope of block. Jay: You are inventing a new term, automatic block. David: Ok how about: Data declared to be static in an automatic task, function, or block has a static lifetime and a scope local to the block. Motion: Accept change as modified above. Moved: Dave Second: Michael Abstain: None Opposed: None Passed LRM-195 Arturo: The definition of semantics of pass by reference was removed somehow, it should not have been deleted. Neil: Is it undoing LRM-111? David: No, it is applying it correctly. Motion: Accept change Moved: Arturo Second: Neil Abstain: None Opposed: None Passed LRM_199 Motion: Accept change in LRM-199 Moved: Arturo Second: Mehdi Abstain: None Opposed: None Passed David: 3 issues come from the email reflector that we need to discuss. Unused production range_list_or_array in BNF (from Ray Ryan) Accepted without objection LRM syntax for calls to randomize David: There was a question from Ray, on randomize, two different places with two different rules. Arturo: I think there was some confusion for the use of "with", one in randomize and one on the array randomization. Ray: I was looking at 12.5.1, randomize is pre-defined method. Syntactically they do match up. In the way LRM is shown, it looks like a blocking assignment. Randomize returns a value 0/1. You cannot use if (randomize...), because we are making randomize a statement, why can we not make it a method call. Arturo: Yes, i guess we can do this. Brad do you have any comments. Brad: It should be an expression? Ray: In 8.2, there is the rule for method call. makes it easier, pulls the two with in there makes it clear. with {}, with (), class, and array. Brad: The first thing was to remove randomize from blocking assignemnt, three places. Should we change method call to say, any expression or class-variable identifier. Arturo: It should be any expression. Ray: That part is optional, looking at scope for randomize productions. David: Can I make a suggestion to take it off-line, discuss it on the reflector, propose a solution, and we can vote on it. Unpacked arrays fixed and dynamic David: The last one is the issue of packed-array form Johnattan. Do you still want to make the change that you proposed. Informative change in 4.1, deletion in 4.2, and some change in 4.6. Dave: Deletion in 4.2 is moved into 4.1, updated to deal with queues, and text being one-dimensional was not right. David: Jonattan's suggestion did nothing to change the intent? Dave: He was trying to find better wordings. Neil: Not that he disagreed with you, Dave: No, he did not make any other suggestions either. Motion: Accept change as documented in email Moved: Dave Second: Arturo Abstain: None Opposed: None Passed 5. LRM Review Summary and Assignments: Glossary Dave - in progress Verification of all cross references Sections 1-7: Ray - in progress Sections 8-14: Stu Sections 15-21: Neil - in Draft 4 Sections 21-29: Brad - in Draft 4 Check all changes for consistency and correctness Assertions - Michael - in progress Semantic simularities with Assertions being found. C API - Classes/Randomization - Mehdi - in progress Constraints - Arturo - in progress Types - Dave - in progress 6. Review 3.1a Extensions and discussion All closed 7. Meeting Logistics Next meeting scheduled for 18 February 2004 from 10:00am until 12:00pm Focus on editorial review and any open errata. 8. Next Meeting Monday February 18, 2004, 10:00am-12:00 pm PST 9. Meeting adjourned at: 11:45 am.