Re: Survey - Version 0.2

Logie Ramachandran wrote:
> Hi Kevin, 
>
> Thanks for quick response. My comments below. 
>
> Logie.  
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin Cameron [mailto:kevin@sonicsinc.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 3:54 PM
> To: Logie Ramachandran
> Cc: sv-xc@eda.org
> Subject: Re: Survey - Version 0.2
>
> Logie Ramachandran wrote:
>   
>> Hi Team,
>>
>> I have incorporated the feedback and created Version 0.2 of 
>> survey. Please give it a last minute read, and we can send it out
>> if there is no major changes proposed in the next 2 days. 
>>   
>>     
> I still don't think it's clear whether you talking about a single 
> simulator/vendor environment or multiple tools from different vendors 
> talking to each other.
>
> LOGIE>> I assume that you are talking about 1.4. This was the wording
> LOGIE>> we agreed to in the meeting. Can you propose changes to 
> LOGIE>> the current wording
>
> LOGIE>>  1.4      In the context of interoperability, is it important to
>
> LOGIE>>           have the capability to cosimulate multiple simulators
> LOGIE>>           (supporting different languages) from different vendors?          
>   
Not so much that question specifically, just the general impression is 
that the questions refer to a co-simulation environment rather than a 
more academic exercise in making the language semantics compatible.
> Also, we have the issue that we currently have to generate models for 
> multiple SystemC environments (different headers/compilers), and would 
> much rather be able to ship a single object file that was usable with 
> multiple SystemC environments (as well as SV). So maybe a question or 
> two about interoperability of versions for compiled IP would be useful.
>
> LOGIE>>  I am concerned that we are expanding the scope of the survey
> LOGIE>>  beyond what was original discussed. This question mainly 
> LOGIE>>  addresses the compatibility of SystemC versions as it pertains
> LOGIE>>  to a compiler  (gcc version x).
>   
I'm just raising issues we have. If the result of the survey is that 
no-one else cares about that particular issue (or co-simulation in 
general) then we can go tackle the issue somewhere else. If most people 
do care then we may need to reassess the goals of the committee.

Since we are moving into an era of increasing reuse, we need 
methodologies that support black-box IP from multiple vendors, defining 
the inter-language semantics is only half the solution. I think the 
language issues and the mechanics of co-simulation can be tackled by 
separate subcommittees if we need to do both, so it probably won't 
impact schedule that much, although I'm sure looking at the 
implementation issues will help prioritize the language issues.

Kev.
>   
>> Somdipta, do you want to attempt changing the format to 
>> Excel? 
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Logie. 
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------
>> Loganath Ramachandran   
>> Director, R&D
>> Verification Group,      
>> Synopsys
>> Mountain View, CA 94043
>>
>> Ph: 650-584-4891
>> Em: logie@synopsys.com
>>
>>   
>>     
>  >snip<
>
>   

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