RE: [vhdl-200x] RE: VHPI standard

Folks,
 
The D2 draft of the LRM includes the VHPI specification that was reviewed by
the IEEE WG. There remain a small number of resolved VHPI issues that need
to be incorporated into the LRM. Also, the path name issue that Steve
mentioned needs to be resolved, as it affects VHPI paths. Once that's done,
we would have a stable LRM that could be balloted and approved by Accellera.
Presumably IEEE could then publish it as a draft.
 
Cheers,
 
PA

--
Dr. Peter J. Ashenden                        peter@ashenden.com.au
Ashenden Designs Pty. Ltd.                   www.ashenden.com.au
PO Box 640                                   Ph:  +61 8 8339 7532
Stirling, SA 5152                            Fax: +61 8 8339 2616
Australia                                    Mobile: +61 414 70 9106


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org [mailto:owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org] On Behalf Of
Bailey, Stephen
Sent: Friday, 26 August 2005 01:17
To: Francoise Martinolle; vhdl-200x@eda.org
Cc: lancet@us.ibm.com; Victor Berman
Subject: [vhdl-200x] RE: VHPI standard


Peter,
 
I believe the current draft is very stable (just the path name issue, if my
memory serves me well).
 
Lance,
 
Perhaps we can take this through the Accellera TC as the 1st draft:  Get TC
approval of it and get Accellera permission to make it available as
Accellera's 1st draft.  (This would be appropriate since Accellera had
funded the LRM editing.)  This would accomplish two things:
 
1.  Get the draft out for broader review and implementation.  (Faster than
going thru an IEEE balloting process.)  And finally provide the VHPI with
the recognition that it is ready.
 
2.  Show that the TC is already producing results.
 
-Steve Bailey


  _____  

From: Francoise Martinolle [mailto:fm@cadence.com] 
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 9:29 AM
To: Bailey, Stephen; vhdl-200x@eda.org
Cc: lancet@us.ibm.com; 'Victor Berman'
Subject: VHPI standard


 Stephen, Lance, Peter,
 
I am getting several requests from the user community to access the latest
VHPI draft standard.
Their intention is to develop tools using the VHPI interface.
What can we do about this? I can point them to my VHPI draft that I wrote
but it may be
out of date with the current IEEEVHDL-1076- VHPI draft.
 
When do we expect to ballot the draft that Peter wrote? I do not think we
can wait until next year.
This is not acceptable. We need to put a plan in place to get this out as
soon as possible.
 
Francoise
       '