Minutes for VSG 1/13/03 (Thanks Stefen for taking these): ---- Preamble ---------------------------------------------------- NEXT MEETING DATE: -----> January 27, 2003 <----- NEXT MEETING TIME: 08:30 PST 11:30 EST 18:30 IST ------------------------------------------------------------------ Attendence: Today | v aaaaaaa Anders Nordstrom a aaa Clifford E. Cummings as aaaa Dennis Marsa aa Erich Marchner aaaa aa Gordon Vreugdenhil aaaaaaa James A. Markevitch aaaa aa Karen Pieper aaaaaaa Michael McNamara aaaa aa Steven Sharp aaaa a- Charles Dawson aaaaaa- Shalom Bresticker aaaaaa- Stefen Boyd aaa aa- Stuart Sutherland a aa- Tom Fitzpatrick -a Peter Flake a aa Brad Mac - Making good progress at opening PAR. Working with Paul Menchini. Fixing errata and taking donations part of PAR. Doing June 2004 2004. Go to Revcom in Jan 2005. Do these dates work. Shalom - We've already been working for a while. Mac - 18months is shortest imaginable timeframe. If we choose June 2004 It'll make revcom happy, but shorter would make impression on detractors. Anders - If we are going to do SystemVerilog 3.0 it might work, but more than that will not happen. Shalom - When we were talking about this PAR, we were not going to include much SV Anders - Delaying 6 months to take in SV 3.0 would be worth effort for having a standard that doesn't appear stuck in the dark ages. Shalom - This is a rehash of previous discussion. We owe user community a cleaned up version. Steven - Can we have overlapping Gordon - How many users care about refinement of 2001 spec - they probably care more about new stuff. Shalom - Speaking as a user, we are waiting for vendors to support Verilog 2001. Those that do, support a different subset. Brad - This is an issue of vendors picking strategically from standard, not from standard problem. Mac - Is sense of problem due to standard or strategy? Brad - Will hit objective regardless of standards progress. Schedule for features will not be hurt by later standard. Steven - Can't put bubble into standard progress, vendors will do something that isn't compatible. Mac - Standardizing best features of SV seems like high value, especially if this stuff is what will be implemented across vendors. Brad - Keep in mind that there may be blocks to communication that may hinder. Stu - Most with standard won't need anything outside of corrigendum to fix 2001. Cliff - Hoping for SV3.0 this Thursday. Brad - Think that trial balloon of 3.1 is good, but it's too soon to incorporate into this version. Mac - Sounds like "please give us 3.0, there is some vendor experience now. Keep working on 3.1 and 3.2, we'll look forward to seeing that in the future." Stefen - Are we going to approve minutes from last meeting? AI Mac to send out minutes from last meeting Stefen proposing list of etfpassed Mac - Will read through and look for problems with proposals that will require separate vote. Cliff reading through each issue. Cliff - Issue 121 - Can we see what syntax 12-7 look like to know what we're allowing Shalom to do? Shalom - Problem was with IEEE use of special symbols for footnotes that did not print Issues 12, 28, 53, 56, 59, 60, 94, 97, 104, 118, 121, 122, 124, 131, 143, 152, 159, 174, 180, 207, 223 Mac - 63 and 130 should just dissappear since they are closed Stefen - Remove "Shalom: And" from 143. Shalom - Want to discuss 178. Proposal to pass above by Stefen, Anders second, passed Issue 178 - if else if... Shalom - It really is redundant and should be removed. Cliff - Remember it being redundant, but it might help users to see the options. Shalom - Biggest reason it wasn't passed was because it would require word smithing. Proposal to take back to committee - Shalom, Brad second, Stefen, Anders, Cliff, Dennis, James against Steven Abstain Shalom, Brad, Stu - favor Motion doesn't carry Stefen will bury 178. Meeting adjourned at 10:30am Next VSG meeting will be 2/10/03