Subject: FW: HDL+ SystemVerilog 3.1 Planning Meeting Minutes and Presentat ions
From: Vassilios.Gerousis@Infineon.Com
Date: Mon Jun 17 2002 - 06:56:56 PDT
> HDL+ Minutes are taken by Dennis Brophy.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> VG: Everyone Should notice that this is an HDL+ committee Meeting.
> This is not a Verilog++ committee.
>
> HDL+ Attendees
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> (Vassilios to insert physical and phone attendees)
>
> All Day Physical Attendees
> Vassilios Gerousis
> Harry Foster
> Jayant Nagda
> Bassam Tabbara
> David Smith
> Rich Goldman
> Grant Martin
> Kevin Cameron
> Karen Pieper
> Dennis Brophy
> Paul Graham
> Stuart Swan
> Stuart Sutherland
> Harish Chaudhry
> 2PM Physical Attendees
> Alec
> Rajiv Rarjan
>
> Phone Attendees
> ===============
> Erich Masrschenr
> Karen Bartelson
> Simon Davidsman
> David Kelf
> Adam Krolnik
> Micahel McNamara
> Andrew Lynch (For Michael M.)
> Peter Flake
> Cliff Cummings
> Tom Fitzpatrick
> David Lacey
>
> HDL+ Agenda
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~
> (See published agenda)
>
> Introduction
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~
> (See attached slides from Vassilios)
> 3.0 spec is complete; good work went to get to where we are. Thanks to all who participated in this effort.
> 3.1 Planning
> Voting structure will depart from what was conducted for 3.0 because of influx of several representatives from several companies. Accellera members will have voting rights, per company, and the 3.0 IEEE members will as well.
>
> For the meeting, the following was written as a guide for the meeting:
> 1. Need to establish content of 3.1
> 2. Milestones, schedule and target need to be set
> 3. Committee organizational issues need to be addressed
> 4. Focus of SystemVerilog with 3.1 extensions.
>
> SystemVerilog Committee Issues
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> (See Vassilios> '> slides. Changes to the issues were updated live on his slides. Also see Stu> '> s file of categorization of the issues created during the meeting.
>
> New Sub-Committee
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> It is proposed to create a subcommittee to prioritize the list and develop a plan to address it. Discussion on this was halted to address Simon> '> s concerns.
>
> Concern By Simon
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Simon stated a concern he wanted noted. It is noted in the minutes to allow the committee to reflect on this concern and serve as a formal record of it. Simon stated that 3.1> '> s main focus was to clean and finish any issues raised with version 3.0 in order to ensure a rapid handoff to the IEEE 1364 team. He has expressed any deviation from looking only at these issues will actually not allow the team to make a deadline of 12/2002, but jeopardize the handoff of standard to the IEEE. Simon is concerned that the discussion of additional donations is out of scope with the group and that an up-front discussion of scope is appropriate and advised before discussing much more.
>
> The concern was noted and Vassilios said the scope would be discussed as outlined in the agenda at the end of the meeting.
>
> Synopsys Proposal
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> (See Janant> '> s slides)
> Synopsys proposes enhancements to SystemVerilog with a proposal that covers:
> a) Testbench features
> b) Unified Assertions
> c) C interface
> d) Extended API
>
> Proposal: Should SystemVerilog be limited to the Basic bucket list only?
> Vote: No - Verplex, Alec (IEEE), Stu (IEEE), Synopsys, Novas, Cadence, Mentor
> Yes - Cliff (IEEE), Verisity, Co-Design
> Abstain - Real Intent
>
> Motion approved
>
> Organization Issues
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Create an issues committee to prioritize the list and to develop a plan to address the list.
> Create a third sub-committee to deal with the C/C++ and interfaces with SystemVerilog
> Create a subcommittee to deal with SystemVerilog language enhancements that are not in the other committees. (I.E., assertions and C/C++ I/F is not part of this group)
>
> IEEE Plans
> ~~~~~~~~~~
> The chair indicated the IEEE should start in August moving forward with the language since a lot of errata need to be addressed. Based on the good work that Accellera has done > to this point, 1364 chair has delayed starting up. After errata are handled, the 1364 team would pick up in 11-12/2002 implementation experiences and corrections. If Accellera were working on other extensions, then the only other alternative open to the 1364 team would be to use 3.0 as approved and move on from that point. The 1364 chair would like to move on the committee using the IEEE owned language with the changes known today, and not have the other donations as part of it. In his duties to IEEE the chair would need to take only 3.0 and move forward and not wait for 3.1. IEEE chair suggests we look at a limited number of additions. Talking about the C interface, there are 3 PLI in the IEEEs and that should be the basis of extension, not a fourth one. The IEEE committee should be the on!
e to take this one. Otherwise the scope will diverge from Accellera and the IEEE. It looks like a mess right here. Question to IEEE Chair: Has the committee looked at the C interface issues in the past? Yes, VPI was part of that. Synopsys did not forward Direct-C, therefore there have been no issues on this. If Synopsys would get legal to open this, then the IEEE would be open to look at it.
>
> If we wait or give Accellera another 18 months since that is what it looks like it takes, we will not be doing our duty as an IEEE committee. I think it is time to bring it forward with these new things; lets finish what we> '> ve got.
>
> Stu - Concurs on the PLI. Adding to the PLI really belongs on the IEEE committee. It is more than this committee can actually handle. Extending C within SystemVerilog belongs to the SystemVerilog committee.
>
> Questions: Is IEEE 1364 looking at overlap with what the AMS is doing? Yes, but we did a poor job the last time, but they are not an IEEE standard.
>
> Discussion: Simon - If the committee goes off to do extensions, then there is a high probability that it will not become an IEEE standard. Alec - It does not appear to be that big of a risk.
>
> Motion: Approve creation of the sub-committees for SystemVerilog
> Enhancement Committee - Vassilios Acting, but open another person
> Clean-up Committee (Proposed - Cliff)
> C Interface Committee - Stu
>
> Second: Janat
> Vote: No - Verisity, Co-Design
> Yes - Cadence, Mentor, Synopsys, Verplex, Novas, Stu, Alec, Real Intent, Stephen Boyd
> Abstained - Cliff
>
> Motion carried.
>
> Milestones
> ~~~~~~~~~~
> First, committee needs to come back with a recommendation with a plan to prioritize what they will be doing. They will come back to the main committee and meet once a month. The sub-committee will meet as often as they can. But the first milestone should finished within 30 days after DAC.
>
> Vassilios will meet with each of the committees to discuss what the milestones should be. The date is July 15. There will be a joint meeting on that Monday.
>
> This discussion sounds good, but is this too many meetings?
>
> Motion: Limit the frequency of the meetings so committee members can participate in all meetings. The time limit should be no more than 8 hours per week for meetings and must finish before 4PM Pacific Time. (Tom)
>
> Second: Cliff
>
> Vote: No - Synopsys Mentor
> Yes - Alec, Novas, Cadence, Cliff, Verisity, Co-Design, Real Intent, Verplex, Stu, Stephen
> Abstain -
>
> Motion carried.
>
> Categorized List
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> (See Stu> '> s list)
>
> Assertions (OVL) Plans
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> OVL Status
> Rework OVL to make it more consistent and useable. Make it something that is more an IEEE standard library. The team wants to create procedural elements and currently it is concurrent. We are converting the user manual to an LRM. We are using 1.0 manual to be the base and continue this with 2.0.
>
> OVL VHDL should have a separate committee. There is a VHDL library release, but it does not make sense to include the Verilog/Sugar in it. There are VHDL users that want to drive it participating in this work.>
>
>
> ------------------> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dr. Vassilios Gerousis Infineon Technologies
> DAT CAD, MchB
> Telephone: +49-89-234-21342 BalanSt. 73
> Fax: +49-89-234-23650 D-81541 Munich
> email: Vassilios.Gerousis@infineon.com Germany
> Site Map: http://www.stadtplandienst.de/query;ORT=m;PLZ=81541;STR=Balanstr%2E;HNR=73
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > <<HDL+Slides.zip>>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Jun 17 2002 - 07:05:47 PDT