Subject: Minutes of meeting, 8/20/02 Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 10:48:08 -0700 From: Yatin Trivedi To: sv-cc@server.eda.org, alain@tensilica.com, darryl.parham@eng.sun.com *************************************************************** Next Meeting: Tuesday 09/03 at 12:00 noon east coast time Meetings Schedule and Call Info: PARTICIPANT INFORMATION: ----------------------- All Participants should use the following information to reach the conference call: * PARTICIPANT CODE: 707131 * Toll Free Dial In Number: (877)807-5706 * International Access/Caller Paid Dial In Number: (225)383-8961 SV-CC (08/20/2002) **************************************************************** Minutes of meeting 08/20 Attendees: [xxx-] Ghassan Khoory (Synopsys, Co-Chair) [xxx-] Kevin Cameron (NSC) [xxx-] Simon Davidmann (Co-Design) [xx-x] Peter Flake (Co-Design) [xxxx] Joao Geada (Synopsys) [x---] Tayung Liu (Novas) [xxxx] Andrzej Litwiniuk (Synopsys) [x---] Mike McNamara (Verisity) [xxx-] Stuart Swan (Cadence) [--xx] Francoise Martinole (Cadence) [-xxx] Bassam Tabbara (Novas) [--xx] Yatin Trivedi (ASIC Group) [--xx] Michael Rohleder (Motorola) [--x-] Darryl Parham(Sun) [---x] Alain Reynaud ------------------------ Summary of all ACTION items from this meeting: (These items are also listed again in the minutes) ACTION 1: Yatin to collate all comments and make requirements document on eda.org under sv-cc area. ACTION 2: Francoise to check the status and report back by email. She will also look into the requirements aspects of the donation. ACTION 3: Discuss this item further, including Kevin and others with C++ usage and experience. Email discussion. ACTION 4: Yatin to put together a document with Assertions API Requirements document. Make it available on eda.org. Bring up for discussion of each request (i.e. line-by-line discussion), then vote. ACTION 5: Joao to provide clarification on scope of Assertion API. ACTION 6: Joao to ask Ghassan regarding possibility including Database API. Joao is out for two weeks, so most of his action items will be delayed. ACTION 7: Yatin to put together a document with Covergae API requirements document. Make it available on eda.org. Bring up for discussion of each request (i.e. line-by-line discussion), then vote. ACTION 8: Francoise will provide the new VPI requirements and object model proposal by email prior to next conference call (9/3/02). ACTION 9: Michael Rohleder to lead discussion on this topic and drive for consensus. ACTION 10: Ask Peter or Co-design representative in subsequent meetings. ACTION 11: This needs further discussion by email. ------------------------ Minutes of the meeting: - Andrzej proposed acceptance of the minutes of the meeting of 8/6/02. It was approved unanimously. - Yatin complimented everyone for participation and discussion via email and encouraged to do more. - Michael suggested that a "living document" be made of all the requirements and post it on eda.org website; make past versions accessible ACTION 1: Yatin to collate all comments and make requirements document on eda.org under sv-cc area. - Yatin mentioned SV full committee meeting 8/28 and a face-to-face meeting during week of 9/16 or 9/23 in San Jose, as forwarded in email. All are encouraged to attend. - Vassilios' email regarding "Donations Deadline" mentions September 15. Yatin suggested that the donations include both requirements and proposals similar to problem and solution pair. - Francoise mentioned that Cadence donation is currently with the legal group. ACTION 2: Francoise to check the status and report back by email. She will also look into the requirements aspects of the donation. - Joao completed his action item from 8/6/02 to submit "Global Requirements for all APIs". An email was sent on 8/14 and subsequently discussed through emails. - Based on Kevin's email, Joao asked whether the API compatibility should be maintained at source level or object level? This decision may have implications on C++ support. ACTION 3: Discuss this item further, including Kevin and others with C++ usage and experience. Email discussion. - Joao completed his action item from 8/6/02 to submit "Assertions API requirements". An email was sent on 8/14/02 and subsequently discussed with some comments from Bassam. There was no apparent disagreement about the requirements, so a document should be put together to formally start the collection of assertions requirements. ACTION 4: Yatin to put together a document with Assertions API Requirements document. Make it available on eda.org. Bring up for discussion of each request (i.e. line-by-line discussion), then vote. - Question was raised (by Alain?) whether Assertion API is being defined for simulation tools only or model checkers as well? It was discussed and suggested that the scope of the assertion API be clearified. Such explanation should be included in the Requirements document. ACTION 5: Joao to provide clarification on scope of Assertion API. - Joao completed his action item from 8/6/02 to submit "Coverage API requirements" An email was sent on 8/16/02 and subsequently discussed in form of comments from various people. - Alain asked whether the coverage API is being defined only for simulation tools or can it be used by post-processing tools? Joao indicated that he current proposal is for single simulation coverage only (though simulator could read previously collected data, it can be presented only in aggregate form through API). There can be a Database API, but that is not part of the proposal Synopsys has presented. ACTION 6: Joao to ask Ghassan regarding possibility including Database API. Joao is out for two weeks, so most of his action items will be delayed. - Covergae API requirements are ready to be put in a document form. ACTION 7: Yatin to put together a document with Covergae API requirements document. Make it available on eda.org. Bring up for discussion of each request (i.e. line-by-line discussion), then vote. - Francoise has not put VPI requirements and proposal together yet. ACTION 8: Francoise will provide the new VPI requirements and object model proposal by email prior to next conference call (9/3/02). - Further discussion on Global Requirements: * Object code compatibility vs source code compatibility * PLI is not object code compatible between platforms, simulators and versions of the same simulator * Advantage of object code compatibility is that there is no need to recompile. Support of legacy applications is a lot easier * Disadvantage: Makes it difficult to support C++ * There were some issues with compatibilit between versions of g++ compiler. * Everyone seem to accept the intent on the committee's part to establish object code compatibility by defining C API ACTION 9: Michael Rohleder to lead discussion on this topic and drive for consensus. - Peter was asked about a follow-up to Co-design's intent to donate API proposals. He was not in a position to make a statement if or when the donations may be made. ACTION 10: Ask Peter or Co-design representative in subsequent meetings. - Issue of dealing with user defined types and API was discussed. Current API proposals deal with primitive types only. How do we deal with complex types such as pointers? ACTION 11: This needs further discussion by email. - Francoise asked how the requirements submission and proposals submission related? Yatin clarified that proposals are meant to be solutions to some problems. The requirements are the problem statements. Not every proposal must be submitted with the requirements. Some of the submitted requirements that the committee is looking at now may be the same, so there is no need to submit those requiremetns again, though identifying those requirements to set the context for each proposal will be useful. However, previously unspecified/unknown requirements should accompany the proposal. Meeting adjourned at 1:05pm EST. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Yatin Trivedi Yatin Trivedi 2132 Bridle Ridge Ct Cellular: 408 761-0262 San Jose Fax: 408 223-1231 CA Home: 408 223-1231 95138 Work: 408 761-0262 USA Additional Information: ig>