Accellera SV-BC Technical

Committee
(System Verilog Design Modeling)
Home
Meeting Schedule
Operating Guidelines
Meeting Minutes
Working Documents Committee Mission
Email Archives
A. Address remaining issues from System Verilog 3.0
Current Members B. Address issues exposed in SystemVerilog 3.1 standard
through implementation
Committee Mission C. Handle all design modeling issues, such as
Goals/Objectives refinements of the language as well as design
enhancements to solidify System Verilog as RTL
Process
design language
Donations/Proposal
Errata
Voting Rules Goals/Objectives
Milestones
A. Resolve all known issues in the RTL design language
Deliverables and new issues found either through implementation
by vendors or usage by designers
SV-BC 3.1 Web B. Process any donations or proposals that are made
according to the defined process
C. Any extension, enhancement or modifications of the
modeling language must be consistent with
SystemVerilog 3.1
D. Be complete with 3.1A release by DVCON 2004

Process
A. Request proposals/donations on a specific list of
topics that must be committed to by a specified date
and provided by a specified date (see milestones)
B. Review all appropriate errata, proposals, and/or
donations and incorporate into the 3.1a LRM
C. All work will be voted on as per the voting
guidelines
D. The SV-BC web site will be the primary repository or
all work and communication

Donation/Proposals
The list of enhancements for 3.1a will be based on the list
created by the SystemVerilog committee chairs. This will be
refined, prioritized, and approved during the first month of
operations.
All donations or proposals must be submitted according to the
following guidelines:

A. Submissions must be based on at least a prototype in

an EDA tool (internal or commercial vendor).
B. The submitter will need to make a statement that the
submission meets and will be trusted without having
to provide proof.
C. The submission must be consistent with SystemVerilog
3.1 design. This will be determined by the
committee.
D. The submission must be described in terms of
SystemVerilog 3.1 syntax and semantics.
E. The submission must be in a form that is in the
style of the SystemVerilog 3.1 Language Reference
Manual (LRM), including the relevant BNF changes.
F. Submissions will be limited by date (both on
commitment and delivery) and multiple proposals will
be resolved by vote.

Failure to meet any of items A-F will be grounds for a

submission to be rejected. Rejection sends the submission
back to the submitter after which they have one more
opportunity to resubmit, without prejudice. The original
submission deadline must still be met.

The committee must process each qualified submission using

the following process:

A. review the submission for:

a. does it meet address the topic
b. missing information
c. design, syntactic, and semantic
consistency/conflicts with SystemVerilog 3.1 and
Verilog 1364-2001
d. Style of the submission consistent with
SystemVerilog 3.1 LRM.
B. vote on acceptance of the submission
a. on acceptance no other submissions will be
accepted on the same topic
C. refine the submission
a. detailed analysis and editing of submission
description
D. vote on approval of the submission
a. Once the submission is approved then it becomes
part of the 3.1a LRM.

Errata
All changes to the existing LRM to fix errors, refine
concepts, or clarify descriptions will be handled as errata.
All errata will be created using a web based interface (in
planning). The committee will:

A. review all submitted issues

 B. resolve them as appropriate
C. generate change notices for all changes
D. notify submitter of the resolution

This will require each errata to include the following

information:

A. Problem description
B. Example of problem
C. Submitter’s name
D. Submitter’s email
E. Section(s) of LRM related to issue

The appropriate SystemVerilog champion must concur with all

technical proposals to change 3.1 content.

Voting Structure
Voting is used to resolve issues in a number of areas;
process, technical discussions, acceptance and approval of
submissions, resolution of errata, approving the LRM and
sending it to the board, etc. In general this can be divided
into two categories.

Company based votes:

These votes are for issues where Accellera membership is
required. The following are examples of company based votes:

A. Committee procedural rules

B. Acceptance and approval of submissions
C. Errata that make either major or inconsistent
changes to the SystemVerilog 3.1 LRM
D. Approving the SystemVerilog 3.1a LRM and sending to
the board

Member based votes:

These votes are for issues that are primarily in technical in
nature and do not require Accellera membership. The following
are examples of individual based votes:

A. Resolution of errata
B. Technical decisions in the review and refinement of
submissions

Voting Rules
Voting guidelines are as follows:

A. Attendance
a. Voting attendance is reset as of the first
meeting of the 3.1a effort.
b. Individuals that were eligible to vote at the end
of 3.1 will be eligible to vote at the beginning
of 3.1a (with the assumption that they have 3 out
of the last 4 meetings attended).
 c. Individuals must attend 3 out of the last 4
regularly scheduled meetings to be able to be
eligible to vote or must have attended at least
75% of the meetings during the 3.1a effort.
d. Company votes are based on a designated
individual’s attendance record (including proxy
specification).
B. Committee Vote
a. All votes require majority of the eligible votes
attending the meeting to pass. A quorum of 50% of
the eligible companies must be present for
company votes and a quorum of 50% of the eligible
individuals must be present for individual votes.
b. The Chair of the committee is not eligible to
vote on individual votes unless there is a tie in
which case the chair’s vote is used to break the
tie. Co-chair can vote as an individual except in
the case where the co-chair is acting as the
chair due to the chair not being present.
c. The Chair of the committee is not eligible to
vote on company votes (unless he is the only
company representative on the committee). If
there is a tie then the TCC chair’s vote is used
to break the tie.
C. Email vote
a. A vote for email can be called by the chair/co-
chair
b. The period for response will be one week (can be
adjusted by agreement before the vote to a
different period within committee)
c. Any negative vote will force the issue to be
discussed and voted on at a committee meeting. A
negative vote must be accompanied with a clear
description of the reasoning behind it.
d. If there are no negative votes and half of the
eligible voters respond with an accept vote then
the motion will be passed (the Chair of the
committee is not eligible to vote on email votes)
e. The purpose of this is to pass items that are
non-controversial and to reduce the time required
to handle them in meetings

Milestones
A. 7 July 2003 – Committees start operating
B. 4 August 2003 – Close of submission commitments
C. 15 September 2003 – Close of submissions
D. 1 December 2003 – Complete technology errata, freeze
technology of submissions, close implementation
feedback
E. 24 December 2003 – End of LRM development, start of
LRM review
F. 24 January 2004 – Send to board
G. 24 February 2004 – Release 3.1a LRM
Deliverables
System Verilog 3.1a LRM