Subject: RE: [sv-ac] RE: [sv-bc] Minor changes for final LRM
From: David W. Smith (david.smith@synopsys.com)
Date: Wed May 14 2003 - 08:43:39 PDT
Jay and Vassilios,
Based on this decision I will leave the latest version on the web site as
part of the changes but make sure that Stu knows NOT to include it in the
final LRM unless there is a vote approving it.
Regards
David
David W. Smith
Synopsys Scientist
Synopsys, Inc.
Synopsys Technology Park
2025 NW Cornelius Pass Road
Hillsboro, OR 97124
Voice: 503.547.6467
Main: 503.547.6000
FAX: 503.547.6906
Email: david.smith@synopsys.com
<http://www.synopsys.com/> http://www.synopsys.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of Jay
Lawrence
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 5:44 AM
To: Vassilios.Gerousis@Infineon.Com; Stephen.Meier@Synopsys.COM;
david.smith@Synopsys.COM; sv-ac@eda.org
Subject: RE: [sv-ac] RE: [sv-bc] Minor changes for final LRM
Thanks Vassilios,
An email vote will satisfy my process question. I ask only that this be a
few day vote as I know the Cadence committee member (Erich) is traveling in
Japan and may not be able to vote until he returns on Monday/Tuesday of next
week.
Sincerely,
Jay Lawrence
===================================
Jay Lawrence
Senior Architect
Functional Verification
Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
(978) 262-6294
lawrence@cadence.com
===================================
-----Original Message-----
From: Vassilios.Gerousis@infineon.com
[mailto:Vassilios.Gerousis@infineon.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 8:04 AM
To: Jay Lawrence; Stephen.Meier@synopsys.com; david.smith@synopsys.com;
sv-ac@eda.org
Subject: RE: [sv-ac] RE: [sv-bc] Minor changes for final LRM
Hi Jay,
The process for the semantics is similar to what was done with DWG,
ASWG. A group was created (Four of the most experts in the industry on
formal) headed by John. These semantics were discussed and debated in his
working group. They have released several versions of the semantic LRM for
review by the committee. No one provided any feedback from the SV-AC side.
John also sent a copy to FVTC committee. I believe in his first draft
someone asked a question, and john provided an answer.
So the semantics were debated, discussed and agreed upon by the semantic
working group. It was put for review by the full committee. Since SV-AC is
an active group, I would assume if someone found an issue with it, they
would have said something.
So now your primary question, should be singled down to SV-AC vote on the
semantic inclusion in the appendix. So Faisal, please issue a vote by
email, to complete the process and get this done to satisfy the process.
Best Regards
Vassilios
-----Original Message-----
From: Jay Lawrence [mailto:lawrence@cadence.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 1:35 PM
To: Stephen Meier; David W. Smith; sv-ac@eda.org
Subject: RE: [sv-ac] RE: [sv-bc] Minor changes for final LRM
This is more a question of process than content Stephen.
The semantic appendix is without a doubt the most precise and
self-consistent part of the entire LRM.
The way all the committees I have voting rights in have worked is that these
things were debated and then there is a vote to include the content,
section-by-section, paragraph-by-paragraph. Not a process where-by if noone
objects the content goes in.
Jay
===================================
Jay Lawrence
Senior Architect
Functional Verification
Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
(978) 262-6294
lawrence@cadence.com
===================================
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Meier [mailto:Stephen.Meier@synopsys.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 11:30 PM
To: Jay Lawrence; David W. Smith; sv-ac@eda.org
Subject: Re: [sv-ac] RE: [sv-bc] Minor changes for final LRM
Jay, David et al:
The semantics document has been under review for a considerable time period.
SV-AC members were invited to review and give their feedback and as far as I
know no feedback was given aside from the original semantics team.
Earlier SV-AC meetings clearly stated that the document would be brought
into the LRM as an appendix and there was no objection to that plan.
The semantics were completed by renowned industry experts and it is provided
for completeness and support of the LRM so there is no change, but a clear
semantics definition.
-Steve
----------
At 08:00 PM 5/13/2003 -0400, Jay Lawrence wrote:
David,
I have reviewed the LRM changes here and have 1 question (which may become
an objection) and 1 definite objection.
First the question, did the sv-ac review and approve the addition of this
appendix G as part of change LRM-356?
I'm aware that they had been discussing John's definition here, but it is a
major addition to the LRM that I saw no vote on it for inclusion, there has
certainly been no debate on the reflector for the last 2 weeks (unless I've
been removed from sv-ac). Erich Marschner is our usual sv-ac representative
but he is traveling in Japan and somewhat out of reach. Unless there was a
specific vote to include this major addition, I would ask that it be
removed.
Secondly, I object to the change of functionality in LRM-359. The addition
of the clause "Within a scope, initial values are applied in the order of
declaration". Is not a clarification, it adds a new requirement on
implementation and is not complete. Initial values are allowed to contain
hierarchical names, therefore specifying the ordering within a scope is not
sufficient. A complete ordering of elaboration and assignment of initial
values across all scopes (including parameters, localparams and defparams)
would need to be done to make this initialization deterministic. This
addition is a hack that adds no determinism.
Jay
===================================
Jay Lawrence
Senior Architect
Functional Verification
Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
(978) 262-6294
lawrence@cadence.com
===================================
-----Original Message-----
From: David W. Smith [mailto:david.smith@synopsys.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 7:33 PM
To: sv-ac@eda.org; sv-bc@eda.org; 'sv-cc'; sv-ec@eda.org
Subject: [sv-bc] Minor changes for final LRM
Greetings,
I requested from the chairs and SV champions any changes they felt were
required to the Draft 6 LRM before it is released. These changes are meant
to be corrections to what was provided or correct missing items.
I have just posted to the SV-EC web site
(http://www.eda-twiki.org/sv-ec/Draft_6_Review/LRM_Issues.html) the current set of
changes. These changes (and any others that are deemed by the Chairs to be
appropriate) will be added to the final draft of the LRM.
Regards
David
David W. Smith
Synopsys Scientist
Synopsys, Inc.
Synopsys Technology Park
2025 NW Cornelius Pass Road
Hillsboro, OR 97124
Voice: 503.547.6467
Main: 503.547.6000
FAX: 503.547.6906
Email: david.smith@synopsys.com
http://www.synopsys.com <http://www.synopsys.com/>
Steve Meier (stephen.meier@synopsys.com) W: 650-584-4476, Cell: 408-393-8246
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed May 14 2003 - 08:45:23 PDT