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

From: Jim Lewis <jim_at_.....>
Date: Mon Jul 10 2006 - 19:51:34 PDT
Peter, Francoise, and all,
This seems to be a lesson learned in process.  The way I
see the process is that when Accellera passes us a standard,
we address any known issues in the standard, prepare it for
ballot, and addess issues identified in the ballot.

It would be unacceptable to forward on a standard with known
issues to IEEE for balloting, so I find it appropriate to
cancel the vote.

To identity issues and track changes, Chuck has setup
bugzilla with the product: VHDL-2006 VHPI and the revision
2.4a.  Anyone with appropriately scoped issues (primarily
VHPI) with D2.4a please post them to bugzilla.
Since everyone within this group has received a reminder
from myself to participate in the Accellera working groups
(see http://www.vhdl.org/vhdl-200x/hm/0885.html ), I would
expect these issues to be limited to bug fixes.  Accellera
working groups have had open participation, as required by
IEEE, and I would expect to abide by their overall language
design decisions.

For the current issues (those identified by Peter and John),
I need an estimated time to complete the revisions.

In the future, as soon as Accellera freezes a draft for final
approval, either I or Chuck will make sure we have space in
Bugzilla to log issues - please take care to log issues there.
If there are not any issues logged in bugzilla, I would expect
it reasonable to forward the draft to the group for a vote once
Accellera has forwarded it to VASG.

Best Regards,

> 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-2006-2.4a.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

Jim Lewis
Director of Training             mailto:Jim@SynthWorks.com
SynthWorks Design Inc.           http://www.SynthWorks.com

Expert VHDL Training for Hardware Design and Verification
Received on Mon Jul 10 19:51:39 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jul 10 2006 - 19:52:03 PDT