Subject: Fw: [sv-ac] Semantics document attached as appendix to SVA LRM
From: Faisal Haque (fhaque@cisco.com)
Date: Wed May 14 2003 - 09:45:44 PDT
MessageJay has pointed out that we did not vote on the semantics document's inclusion into the SVA LRM as an appendix.
So I would like to get the eligible members (One vote per member company with attendance requirements met) to vote on the semantics document being added to the SVA section of the LRM as an appendix.
---- yes Include the semantics document as an appendix to the SVA section of the LRM
---- no Do not include the semantics document as an appendix to the SVA section of the LRM
There deadline for the vote is Monday may 19th 5:00 pm PDT.
All votes must be sent to me.
Thanks.
-Faisal
----- Original Message -----
From: Vassilios.Gerousis@infineon.com
To: fhaque@cisco.com ; Stephen.Meier@synopsys.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 7:11 AM
Subject: FW: [sv-ac] RE: [sv-bc] Minor changes for final LRM
Hi guys,
We should ensure that no rock is left unturn. Maybe you have it in the minutes somewhere, but if you do not, please send an email and ask member company to vote. Give them until Monday afternoon. The vote should be to include the semantics into the Appendix. Yes or No.
and No reply, means Yes.
Vassilios
-----Original Message-----
From: Gerousis Vassilios (CL DAT CS)
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 2:04 PM
To: lawrence@cadence.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
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
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 - 09:47:47 PDT