RE: [P1800] Request for additional time

One think militating against doing so is the rapidity
with which the other committees are making changes that
affect VPI.  In fact, some of the proposals from the
other committees have VPI changes embedded in them as
well.

I'm afraid that if the standards are decoupled, the
VPI standard will fall even further behind because
those working on the rest of the standard will not
even consider it a constraint.

Regards,
Jim Vellenga

--------------------------------------------------------- 
James H. Vellenga                            978-262-6381 
Software Architect                     (FAX) 978-262-6636 
Cadence Design Systems, Inc.         vellenga@cadence.com 
270 Billerica Rd
Chelmsford, MA 01824-4179
"We all work with partial information." 
----------------------------------------------------------  

]-----Original Message-----
]From: owner-ieee1800@eda.org [mailto:owner-ieee1800@eda.org] 
]On Behalf Of Rich, Dave
]Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 2:02 PM
]To: Charlie Dawson; IEEE1800
]Subject: RE: [P1800] Request for additional time
]
]Chas,
]
]Has anybody looked into the possibility of splitting the VPI chapter
]into a sub-PAR? Then the schedule could be de-coupled from the rest of
]the LRM. The DPI should remain in the main PAR.
]
]Dave
]
]
]> -----Original Message-----
]> From: owner-ieee1800@server.eda.org
][mailto:owner-ieee1800@server.eda.org]
]> On Behalf Of Charlie Dawson
]> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 12:21 PM
]> To: IEEE1800
]> Subject: [P1800] Request for additional time
]> 
]> Hi P1800,
]> 
]> As Chair of the SV-CC, I have been directed to forward the following
]> request for additional time to our current schedule.
]> 
]>    -Chas
]> 
]> SV-CC has reached an impasse in the area of how the information model
]> represents and accesses dynamic data and achieving the right balance
]> between functionality and performance. Given the current schedule
]> constraints we are faced with a specification in this area 
]that either
]> will not be adequate for users, or one with no consensus and 
]that will
]> undoubtedly be a ballot issue for the LRM.  On the other hand, there
]is
]> agreement that this is a very important area to get right and we have
]> the willingness to work on the information model to better represent
]> dynamic data and deal with its lifetime.
]> 
]> We are requesting until the end of March to complete this work.
]> 
]> Having long sought a compromise between backward compatibility with
]the
]> pre-SV information model and extension to SV dynamic data types, we
]have
]> come to the conclusion that we need to focus on a more faithful
]> representation in the information model.  We have to enable
]applications
]> like debugging and design browsing.  The validity of VPI handles and
]> their interaction with the lifetime of dynamic data are also a
]concern.
]> There is a balance we seek between good performance of the simulator
]on
]> the model in the presence of VPI, acceptable performance of VPI
]> applications, and safety considerations.  We may even need VPI
]> applications that participate in the testbench (or other aspects of
]the
]> model) where dynamic data is used in which VPI affects object
]lifetime.
]> What we have clearly recognized is the amount of attention yet
]required
]> and importance of doing it right.  We need the time.
]> 
]> --
]> Charles Dawson
]> Senior Engineering Manager
]> NC-Verilog Team
]> Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
]> 270 Billerica Road
]> Chelmsford, MA  01824
]> (978) 262 - 6273
]> chas@cadence.com
]> 
]> 
]> --
]> This message has been scanned for viruses and
]> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
]> believed to be clean.
]
]
]-- 
]This message has been scanned for viruses and
]dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
]believed to be clean.
]
]
]

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.