RE: [vhdl-200x] Call for Vote: VHDL + VHPI (P1076c-2006-D2.4a)]

John, Jim, and all,
 
Jim's call for a vote on the draft without an opportunity to raise issues
caught me by surprise also. A bit like having a motion moved at a meeting
and calling for a vote without discussion. I'd venture to suggest that the
call was premature, on that basis. Would it be appropriate to call off the
vote, address this issue (and any others that members might raise and that
are in scope), then call for a vote?
 
Cheers,
 
PA

--
Dr. Peter J. Ashenden                peter@ashenden.com.au
Ashenden Designs Pty. Ltd.           www.ashenden.com.au
PO Box 640                           VoIP: 0871270078@sip.internode.on.net
Stirling, SA 5152                    Phone (mobile):  +61 414 709 106
Australia 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vhdl-200x@server.eda-stds.org
[mailto:owner-vhdl-200x@server.eda-stds.org] On Behalf Of John Shields
Sent: Sunday, 9 July 2006 02:13
To: Jim Lewis
Cc: vhdl-200x@server.eda-stds.org; Francoise Martinolle; Peter J. Ashenden
Subject: Re: [vhdl-200x] Call for Vote: VHDL + VHPI (P1076c-2006-D2.4a)]


Hi Jim,

This was not a private discussion and the VHPI group was aware of it, as was
the editor of the LRM.  I raised on the VHPI reflector immediately. As I
said, we felt it best to be handled at the IEEE.  THE LRM was in the hands
of Accellera's board at that moment.  It was deemed not worth derailing the
Accellera board approval of the first draft, making a minor revision, and
recycling the draft through Accellera. Procedurally, it cannot be an ISAC
issue yet ; of course you know that.  I suppose it could be bugzilla'ed and
I simply did not think of that.  This issue came up in April.  As I said,
you surprised me with a call for a vote.  I explained the essence of the
proposed fix in my earlier mail, but there are details to analyze.  The VHPI
group has simply not taken the issue up yet, so there is no complete fix.

I wish we had no LRM bugs, but they happen.  It is straightforward to
resolve technically.  This procedural issue of a change to Accellera's draft
coming in the IEEE review and approval process is going to be normal and we
should expect it.

Next week, I will submit this as a bugzilla.

Regards, 
John  

Jim Lewis wrote: 

John, 
If you have not already submitted this, please submit 
it to either ISAC or Bugzilla.   If this is a known bug, 
it should already be in the system.  These things cannot 
be limited to private discussions. 

Was the VHPI group aware of these issues before this? 
If not, why not?  Is there a proposed fix? 

Regards, 
Jim 






Hi All, 

Vote: negative 

Comment: 

I am afraid I must vote negative, but there is no other reason than this
technical error.  There is a problem that came up very late with vhpi_user.h
file.  We declare the abstract type for characters, vphiCharT as char and it
must be unsigned char to properly represent the VHDL character set.  A
compiler warning: 
  vhpi_def.c: In function `vhpi_is_printable': 
  vhpi_def.c:19: warning: comparison is always true due to limited range of
data type 

led to this and we did not deliver this file until quite late. I discussed
this with Peter Ashenden when I found it and we agreed that we should let it
through Accellera and fix it in the IEEE.  So I did.  You know, at the time,
we both thought it would be reviewed in the IEEE before any call for vote,
but I appreciate how redundant that might now seem.  I never expected to
first raise this issue in a vote. :( 

The VHPI group should just be asked to propose the fix, just to make sure it
ripples through the API correctly. 

Regards, 
John Shields 

Jim Lewis wrote: 



Dear colleagues, 
This is a call for vote from IEEE P1076 WG members on the 
Accellera approved revision of VHDL that includes VHPI plus 
some ISAC revisions.  The purpose of this revision is to make 
VHPI available as a standard.  As such, it does not have 
the additional revisions that were just completed by the 
Accellera VHDL TC.  Those revisions will be put forth later 
(Q1 2007?).  This gives industry some time to tune up the 
revisions if necessary before they become an IEEE standard. 

This revision has been reviewed and approved by both the 
Accellera VHDL TC and the Accellera board.  We have a 
separate PAR for this work (P1076c).  Currently I am 
working on getting the ballot group formed. 

Approval in this case shall mean that we accept this revision 
to be the revision to send to IEEE for balloting. 

The draft is numbered 2.4a by the Accellera VHDL TC and is 
available at: 
http://www.accellera.org/apps/org/workgroup/vhdl/download.php/488/P1076c-200
6-2.4a.zip 

Please forward votes to me by email (eg, by replying to this message) by 5pm

US-PDT, Friday July 28, 2006. 

Potential votes:  Approve, Negative with comment, Negative with no comment,
Abstain 

Vote: 

Comment: 


Best Regards, 
Jim Lewis 
VASG/ IEEE 1076 WG Chair