SV-EC Meeting Minutes 24 March 2003 11:00 am. Monday Voting Members (3/4 or > 75%) (rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrxrxrrxrrrr) (-----a----aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa) Arturo Salz (Synopsys) (-----aa-aaaaaaaaa-a--aaaa) Brad Pierce (Synopsys) (aaaaa-aaaa-aaaaaaaaaaaaaa) David Smith (Synopsys) (-aaa-a-aaaa---a-aaaa-aaaa) Dennis Brophy (ModelTech) (---aaa-a-aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa) Francoise Martinolle (Cadence) (------------aaaaaaaa-aaaa) Jay Lawrence (Cadence) (-------------------a-aaaa) Jeff Freedman (ModelTech) (-------------------aaa-aa) Michael Burns (Motorola) (aaaapaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa) Mehdi Mohtashemi (Synopsys) (-aaaaaaaa-aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa) Neil Korpusik (Sun) (-aaaaaaa-aaaaaa-aaaa-aaaa) Stefen Boyd (IEEE 1364) Non-Voting Members (attendance based) (----------------a------a-) Chris Spear (Synopsys) (a-aaaa-aaa-aaaa-a-aa---a-) Cliff Cummings (IEEE 1364) (--------aa-a-a-aaa-a--a-a) Stu Sutherland (IEEE 1364) (----------------a--------) Jayant Nagda (Synopsys) (aaaaaaaaaaaa-------a-----) Karen Pieper (Synopsys) (---a-aa-----a------------) Kurt Takara (0-in) (aapaa----------ma----a---) Peter Flake (Synopsys) Guests (non-voting) (--a----------------------) Adam Krolnik (LSI Logic) (---a-a----------a--------) Alec Stanculescu (Fintronic) (----------------a--------) Alex Zamfirescu (ASC) (---------aa-a-aa-a-a-----) Don Mills (LCDM Engineering) (aa-aa--------------------) Heath Chambers (HMC) (aaa-aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa-aa) Kevin Cameron (National) (-----a-a-a-a-------------) Tim Corcoran (WHDL) Inactive Members (Missed last 4 meetings) (-aaa---------------------) Dave Kelf (Synopsys) (--a--a-a-----------------) Michael McNamara (Verisity) (aaa----------------------) Paul Graham (Cadence) (a------------------------) Roy Armoni (Intel) (aapa-a---------------a---) Simon Davidmann (IEEE) (aa---a-------------------) Steven Sharp (Cadence) (-----a-------------------) Stephen Meier (Synopsys) (-aaaaa--a----------------) Tom Fitzpatrick (Synopsys) (-----a-------------------) Zeev Kirshenbaum (Verisity) r => Regular meeting x => Extra meeting (Presence counts for attendance, absence does not) a => Attended p => Attended by proxy - => Missed Action Items: [identified with AI (#) in this text, # refers to AI number] Minutes 3/24/03 taken by Stefen Boyd 1. Review minutes from the 14 March meeting and approve Motion: Approve minutes from March 14, 2003 Moved: David Second: Mehdi unanimous approved 2. Review and approve changes CH-119 David - Neil had issues with event description. Had comment on pass/fail issue Neil - I thought that we had reversed the order in the assertion syntax working group so that fail came first. Jay - We had changed it to catch which reversed the order but ended with assert so it didn't change David - Problem in 12.6 - at operator or wait. Arturo - removed wording as suggested by Neil Neil - Change "or use the wait()" to "or by using the wait()" David - 12.6.3 - second sentence of paragraph starting with "Using this mechanism" should be "triggered" instead of trigger. Remove unnecessary hyphens. 3.9, AI 88 - variables can be assigned to event variables Arturo - How about changing "event variables can be assigned another event variable or the special value null" to "an event variable can be assigned another event variable or the special value null." David - 12.6 - question on dynamicly allocated or reclaimed Michael - Do you use keyword new? In what sense can they be dynamic? Can we clarify? Sounds like you can use new. Jay - If we just define contexts where they can be used dynamically, it's the same as any other variable type. This is the same as any other data type put in a class. Michael - Thought it was the behavior related to overwritten event going away. Just eliminate allocation. Arturo - Change last sentence of first paragraph of 12.6 from "dynamically allocated and reclaimed" to "assigned to one another" Michael - 12.6 - last sentence of third paragraph should include ->> What is the definition of when you try to use event assigned to null. Francoise - Users won't use assignment to null since it's undefined. We need to test them. Stefen - Sounds like we need the same uses in expressions as we did for chandle. Jay - Two ways to solve problem. Either accept that we need to do comparison on events and handle it in boolean test, or we need to go back to defining the behavior of event. Arturo - Can compare two events in Vera. Jay - We should add equality since it's in Vera. Much discussion on issues with adding evaluation in boolean context and checking using == and !=. Stefen - Use the text in 3.7, substituting event for chandle to allow testing equality and boolean value. This will work for 12.8.3. David - "If event identifier is null, then the triggered event property evaluates to all false." added to 12.6.3 Francoise - had problem with grammer in 12.7.1 - last sentence of first paragraph "and causes the operation to fail" Arturo - Change to "and thus causes the operation to fail" CH-121 David - Neil thought implication operator had unresolved disagreement, but once we resolved meaning of implication operator, this is agreed. CH-122 Francoise - 15.5 confusing code in example. Arturo - Change last sentence from "Statement S2 always executes when the first Active region is processed." Francoise - also remove first from first sentence of third paragraph. Stefen - So when two tasks defined in a module that have been called from the program back-to-back, the execution will be delayed until reactive? Arturo - Yes. Jay - So when do outputs of a task get copied out? Arturo - Immediately. Copy out happens as soon as task returns, and doesn't wait until program has delayed execution until the reactive region. Neil - what was the point of nested scope? Arturo - Handle nested modules. Motion: Approve 119, 120, 121 (with understanding that 12.8.3 on event comparison will be added) Moved: David Second: Dennis passed unanimous 3. Review CH-120 for consistency 4. Discussion on Constraint extension Michael - Problem with random constraints is that they can't be used as both stimulous and checker. All agreed on value and that this is a good future enhancement. 4. BNF discussion (assuming there is any feedback) David: Please get any and all comments on BNF to Stefen in the next couple of days. Arturo: I am working on getting some responses together. 5. LRM edit review Vassillios has put out a schedule of LRM review and approval: SV-EC needs to review SV-BC changes SV-EC needs to reread sections we added SV-EC needs to review SV-AC sections if time permits Review will be between April 1 and April 15. Draft 5 will have 1 week for review to make sure all changes are consistent. SV-EC will vote on sending its sections to the TCC and the board on April 28. 6. Meeting schedule Meetings will be rearranged as follows: 31 March meeting - cancel 7 April schedule 2 hour meeting for handling any draft 4 issues 14 April schedule 2 hour meeting for wrapping up draft 4 issues 21 April schedule 2 hour meeting for wrapping updraft 5 issues 28 April schedule meeting to vote on sending to TCC and board. 7. Meeting closed