Subject: [sv-ec] Meeting minutes for 13 October 2003 Meeting
From: David W. Smith (david.smith@synopsys.com)
Date: Mon Oct 13 2003 - 17:32:10 PDT
Here are the meeting minutes for this weeks meeting (also available on the
web site). The site has also been updated with all changes (including new
LRM items for the closed errata).
Please make note that the next meeting is 20 October 2003 from 12:00 untol
2:00pm.
Regards
David
SV-EC Meeting Minutes
13 October 2003 11:00 am. Monday
(rrrr)
Voting Members (3/4 or > 75%)
(aaaaaaaa) Arturo Salz (Synopsys)
(-aaaaaaa) Brad Pierce (Synopsys)
(--aaaa-a) Cliff Cummings (IEEE 1364)
(aaaaa-aa) Dave Rich (Synopsys)
(aaaaaaaa) David Smith (Synopsys)
(-aaa-aaa) Dennis Brophy (ModelTech)
(aaaaapaa) Jay Lawrence (Cadence)
(--a-aaa-) Jeff Freedman (ModelTech)
(aaa-aaaa) Michael Burns (Motorola)
(-aaaaaaa) Mehdi Mohtashemi (Synopsys)
(aa-aaaaa) Neil Korpusik (Sun)
(--aaaaaa) Ray Ryan (ModelTech)
||||||||_ 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)
(-----s--) Francoise Martinolle (Cadence)
(---a----) Stefen Boyd (IEEE 1364)
(-a---a--) Stu Sutherland (IEEE 1364)
Guests (non-voting)
(--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-25 (Arturo): Update discussion on parameter port list in Section
11.3.
AI-26 (Arturo): EXT-14:
Rework Section 12.10.4/12.10.5 in EXT-14 using methods.
12.4.11: Define semantics of what expressions act as guards and mixing
of expressions.
12.10 Change terminology of scope randomize method.
AI-27 (David): Add suggestion to have specific guard syntax to futures.
AI-28 (Arturo): EXT-15:
Clarify the nesting order of the loop variables.
In the first foreach example change arr to words.
....
Minutes 10/13/03 taken by Mehdi Mohtashemi
1. Review of meeting minutes from 29 September 2003 meeting
Motion: Accept the minutes from 29 September 2003 meeting
Moved: Neil Korpusik
Second: Arturo Salz
Abstain: None
Against: None
Passed
2. Review of action items
AI-5 (Arturo):
Cliff: 3 hours discussion. Coming to consensus on what needs to be
done. Working on action items. Next meeting we should have some
conclusions sent out.
AI-17 (David):
David: list on extension page, added another table below
for list of future extensions. Closed
AI-22 (Arturo):
David: Update 14 sent out to reflector. Closed
AI-23 (David):
Face-to-face action items distributed. Closed
AI-18 (Unassigned):
AI-24 (David):
AI-21 (David):
Coordination with SV-BC. SV-BC has accepted EXT-6. Closed
3. Review of Inter-committee dependencies
Status of moving EXT-6 to SV-BC
David: They accepted it so this is closed.
4. Review of Errata list
ERR-5 (Arturo):
Neil: Would like clarification on the overriding of a class means that
the methods come from the new definition. It does not explicitely
say this.
Arturo: Yes, it is a different class.
Jay: I do not like the wording on this... like to not mix the
namespace and scope here. To reduce confusion between the two.
7 namespaces in V2K...
Arturo: What is the suggestion.
Jay: To reword the statement, review 7.10.1, capability to use,
not tTe scope capability. name-space question.
Arturo: Built-in name space is both scope as well as namespace,
top of the heirarchy.
Michael: To clarify that namespace is scope. Are there namespaces
that are not scope, and vice-versa?
Arturo: Looking at 18.9, describes 5 namespaces. Namespaces in the
package.
Ray: This was supposed to be resolved once package is completed.
David: If we use built-in package on the assumption that the other
resolution clears it. If this is the case would it make the
problem resolved.
Jay: There are words in here that makes it hard to understand what
it means. Namespace 5 things in SV, 7 things in V2k.
Arturo: Would it be easier to use scope in 7.10.1, did not want to
call it $root.
David: It sounds like the basic confusion between namespace and scopes
is a V2k issue. Jay could you raise this issue.
Jay: I have discussed it in ETF, but not gotten a verbal agreement.
We are adding a new built-in namespace. If namespace - 18.9,
if package then wherever it goes.
Arturo: This 7.10.1 should be part of packages.
David: Will delay, clean it up once the 'package' issue is resolved.
Jay - Would like to reword the first paragraph in 7.10.1.
Mike - Not clear what the difference between scope and namespace is.
ERR-7 (Brad):
Brad: BNF change to A.1.4.3, class extension to be able to give
parameter values [original one left it out]. Also removed the time
unit.
Michael: Extend parametrized class, can you leave some parameters of base
class not assigned, defaulted ?
Jay: Can you pass parameter in this list down to underlying class.
Arturo: Yes, we should mention it in the LRM.
Partial template like c++, that maybe useful but not intended for
this proposal.
Motion: Accept ERR-7
Moved: Brad
Second: Mike
Abstain: None
Against: None
Passed
ERR-14 (Brad): Initializers, BNF
Brad: uses variable declaration and list of variable declaration
assignments, also change to variable declaration [removes life-time
on it, moves it to data declaration.]...
Motion: Accept ERR-14
Moved: Brad
Second: Arturo
Abstain: None
Against: None
Passed
ERR-18 (Arturo): Parameter consistent with V2K
Motion: Accept ERR-18
Moved: Neil
Second: Arturo
Abstain: None
Against: None
Passed
ERR-22 (Arturo): Completing list in 13.4
Motion: Accept ERR-22
Moved: Neil
Second: Mike
Abstain: None
Against: None
Passed
ERR-4 (Dave)
ERR-8 (Dave):
ERR-16 (Mehdi):
ERR-19 (Brad):
ERR-20 (Arturo):
ERR-21 (Arturo):
5. Review of 3.1a Extensions and discussion:
Vote on acceptance of: EXT-10 and EXT-12
EXT-10: (functional coverage)
Jay: This is well formed but it is beyond the bounds of 3.1a.
David: Noted.
Motion: Accept EXT-10
Moved: Arturo
Second: Neil
Abstain: None
Against: None
Passed
EXT-12: (Pack/unpack functions for Class)
Neil: Similar to EXT-6.
Dave: Difference is one
Motion: Accept EXT-7
Moved: Dave
Second: Neil
Abstain: None
Against: None
Passed
Review and approval:
EXT-14: (Constraint completion) (30 minutes) 12:07 completion
Arturo reviewed addtions from last meetings action items.
Neil: When operate on an object, use a method. Here object id is
passed to system function, not in sync with dealing with object.
It should be getrandstate/setrandstate as a method.
Arturo: If no arguemnet, then it works on current process.
So a method without a $, pre-defined method in every class.
Neil: It is more consistent with others.
Arturo: I think Neil is not proposing to remove the systemtask.
Michael: We could make them methods on the process classes.
David: Issues, these methods part of process or object.
Arturo: Need to refer to fine-grain process control in this area.
Michael: What about top-level process object?
Arturo: Many top level processes, initial and always block...
the methods in class are virtual, need to reduce confusion for
users.
David: This is not clarification, change to...
Arturo: This syntax is already used in section 12, randomization,
have to probably move them around in the LRM.
David: Maybe two different places. Process control, and in
classes and randomization section.
Arturo: Also srandom, 12.3.
Motion: Change to use methods instead of system tasks in
12.10.4/12.10.5 and change location in LRM where described.
Moved: Neil
Second: Ray
Abstain: None
Against: None
Passed
Continue review (Object guards, iterative constraints, inline random
variable control)
Arturo: changed the two restrictions 12.10.4, also priority in cyclical.
David: Last change was in 12.4, removing dist. was completed
Ray: The object handle guard, normally be handled, extension 14,
one iterative loop, use the form if-then-else as the guard.
Arturo: Changing semantics maybe confusing.
Ray: If a condition added a handle to it, the semantics is changed the
whole condition becomes a guard, evaluated before the constraint is.
Arturo: Only the handle guard expression is evaluated before,
Ray: If the compiler needs to decide. If there are any handles used
in constraints, create a guard.
Arturo: This is where the discussion is,...
Ray: If implicit behaviour is being reviewed.
Arturo: What you are suggesting is ok, but user feedback, need to
define the semantics, specially mixing of expressions and
handles, we can use the whole expression as 'guard'..
Ray: It means that the randomization will get ordering,
so if the condition on constraint, condition includes a random
variable, there is some reason that condition requires guard,
define what happens
Arturo: We have not defined what you get in error conditions.
David: In 12.7, also iterative constraints in class calls.
Arturo: Iterative constraints introduces.. and nested constraints, that
essentially delays when it becomes a state-variable for example.
Ray: With iterative constraints, condition on an iterative constraint,
treated as a guard, again back to implicit ordering.
Arturo: Do not think that is the case.
Arturo: The size of array acts as a iterative constraint.
Ray: Condition does not relate to the size.
Arturo: If size of array is state-variable,..
Ray: Outside of foreach loop the size is not state variable.
Arturo: Correct. Before it is elaborated, before it is done,
the size of array is fixed.
Ray: In one of the examples I had sent out, constraint inside of
foreach, the predicate is a guard,... how it is described in the
definition of foreach: when is it a guard, evaluated first, and
when it is evaluated outside of foreach.
Arturo: If they are active guard, evaluated before.. yes something
is missing form the LRM paragraph. Index variable becoming
a state variable.
Ray: We can clarify it, we could have also clearly indicate the
guard statement, if always treated as a guard, implication is
not treated as a guard.
Arturo: The semantics would then confuse users. This is minimal
constraints, allow users to when to ignore errors. We could
provide something else for treating it as a guard. will probabley
confuse the users.
Neil: Maybe we can get a new writeup.
David: One paragraph, though
Neil: I like the idea Ray has, it sounds staright forward. why would that
be confusing.
Arturo: The guard does not change the semantics. Object is null and there
was a condition to what to do if the object is null.
Ray: If the expression evaluates to false the condition is not evaluate.
whether an error, ..
Arturo: What you say, then the condition is evaluated with what value
for the random variable.
Ray: It is like function call, construct of ordering is introduced by
function call.
Arturo: Would caution not to use the same semantics for that usage,
maybe iff could be used.
Jay: Confused on ordering implications. This may add another layer.
Not sure it would help.
(The following discussion happened after the motion to vote but before
the vote was complete).
David: This maybe larger than single small addition/modification.
It maybe hard to justify it in 3.1a, if it is thought/justified to
do it.
Cliff: I will change my vote to No.
Mehdi: Will abstain on this,
Brad: No, but we can not make it for December.
Motion: Introduce specific construct for guarded constraints.
Moved: Ray
Second: Neil
Abstain: Mehdi, Jay, Dave
Against: Cliff, Arturo, Brad, Mike
For: Ray, Neil
Vote against
David: We will add it to the Future list for discussion.
No more discussion on this section?
Section 12.10
Ray: Can an argument randomize be handle, which is the object?
Arturo: Currently it can be done with constraint mode off/on, if
everything in class was rand.
Ray: Inside the class, only the rand attributed variables are randomized.
Jay: Is there another method, scope method, in 12.10 scope randomize
method behaves same as class randomized method.
Arturo: It uses the current scope to determine what variables are.
Do not allow to overwrite this
Jay: We do not have way to describe this (it is varargs) ...
Arturo: The user would not be able to write this..
Jay: Around the constraint items, have we created a need for a
constraint 'package'?
David: A new version of Extension 14 will be sent to the reflector
with each of the action items identified during the meeting
addressed. Based on this new version we will then hold an email
vote on approval (before the next meeting).
EXT-15: (Handle general foreach construct) (10 minutes) 12:17 completion
Ray: Some more items, corrections, err-2, also explicit what the
ordering is when multiple varibles in the list.
David: Any other issues?
Michael: The first example may need to be corrected.
Arturo: Will fix and resend it.
David: A new version of Extension 15 will be sent to the reflector
with each of the action items identified during the meeting
addressed. Based on this new version we will then hold an email
vote on approval (before the next meeting).
6. Meeting Logistics
David: Looking at logistics we need to hold an additional meeting.
During
this meeting we will address EXT-11 (Dynamic queue) and EXT-9 (Stream
Generation). This meeting will be on October 20 (12:00 to 2:00pm
Pacific).
October 13
EXT-14: complete Constraint Completion
EXT-15: Foreach (1 page)
October 20 (12:00 to 2:00)
EXT-11: Dynamic queue (6 pages)
EXT-9: Stream Generation (7 pages)
October 27
EXT-10: Functional Coverage (18 pages)
November 10
EXT-3: Virtual Interfaces/ports (5 pages)
November 24
EXT-7: Reacting to Assertions (3 pages)
EXT-12: Bitsream support (6 pages)
7. Next meeting:
20 October 2003 from 12:00pm to 2:00pm Pacific time.
8. Close of meeting at 12:58pm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Oct 13 2003 - 17:38:01 PDT