Re: [vhdl-200x] VHDL 200x meeting at DATE

Subject: Re: [vhdl-200x] VHDL 200x meeting at DATE
From: Jim Lewis (Jim@synthworks.com)
Date: Thu Mar 06 2003 - 08:00:40 PST

• Next message: Robert Ingham: "[vhdl-200x] Predefined array types"
• Previous message: Alain Vachoux: "[vhdl-200x] VHDL 200x meeting at DATE"
• In reply to: Alain Vachoux: "[vhdl-200x] VHDL 200x meeting at DATE"
• Next in thread: Stephen Bailey: "Re: [vhdl-200x] VHDL 200x meeting at DATE"
• Reply: Jim Lewis: "Re: [vhdl-200x] VHDL 200x meeting at DATE"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Alain Vachoux wrote:
> ..., but I understood that no new requests will be accepted.
I don't think this was the intended message. The meetings,
at DVCon and at DATE, were ment to be organizational meetings.
As such, requests could not be accepted during the meetings
because there was not enough time. Getting everyone to
agree on organization will provide a foundation to get the
work started.

In the San Jose meeting, I understood that we will be accepting
requests through out the process, but to be practical after
some point requests will not make the cut-off for inclusion
in the draft.

Requests may be submitted via the web form at the VASG page
under bugs and requests. Here is the link I found:
http://www.eda-twiki.org/vasg/bugrep.htm

Currently inputs are sent to ?Steve? Eventually we are
hoping to use GNATS/Bugzilla/?? to track and prioritize
issues.

> - Where is the list of requests actually coming from?
This is a first batch of requests.
This has been a brain-storming effort. As such, all
requests, even ones that are not backward compatible,
were included.

> - I would stress that the validation process should carefully
> consider the implications of the changes to the 1076.1 standard.
> - The 1076.1 WG may have some new requests to add. I would need
> some more time to discuss this in the WG.
Perhaps we need a team from 1076.1. This team could handle
the 1076.1 proposals and review other changes for impact
on the 1076.1 standard.

Is there anything you see there that you think would be
problematic for 1076.1?

Keep in mind, that some dot standards, like 1076.6
specifically exclude some constructs from the subset
of the language they allow. For example, it is not
reasonable to synthesize access types.

Should we be considering to integrate 1076.1 into 1076?

> - The email discussion should be archived in the VASG
> web site in the same way we have in the 1076.1 WG.
I would bet that is in the plan, however, the group is
just getting started.

Cheers,
Jim

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Lewis
Director of Training             mailto:Jim@SynthWorks.com
SynthWorks Design Inc.           http://www.SynthWorks.com
1-503-590-4787
Expert VHDL Training for Hardware Design and Verification
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

• Next message: Robert Ingham: "[vhdl-200x] Predefined array types"
• Previous message: Alain Vachoux: "[vhdl-200x] VHDL 200x meeting at DATE"
• In reply to: Alain Vachoux: "[vhdl-200x] VHDL 200x meeting at DATE"
• Next in thread: Stephen Bailey: "Re: [vhdl-200x] VHDL 200x meeting at DATE"
• Reply: Jim Lewis: "Re: [vhdl-200x] VHDL 200x meeting at DATE"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Mar 06 2003 - 08:07:33 PST