Jim, The VHPI committee will propose a fix for that issue. I suppose that the fix needs to be uploaded in the bugzilla system. Francoise ' -----Original Message----- From: Jim Lewis [mailto:jim@synthworks.com] Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 10:52 PM To: Peter Ashenden Cc: vhdl-200x@eda-stds.org; Francoise Martinolle Subject: Vote Cancelled: VHDL + VHPI (P1076c-2006-D2.4a)] 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, Jim > 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/P >>>> 1076c-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 1-503-590-4787 Expert VHDL Training for Hardware Design and Verification ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Received on Tue Jul 11 03:34:09 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jul 11 2006 - 03:34:35 PDT