RE: HDL Support (was RE: Meeting minutes 050825)

Per,

I support the idea that an implementation can address a subset of the
standard as long the owner of the implementation states that the
implementation is partially compliant (with a language or feature
subset). This is my understanding of Brian's position (which I agree
with). 

Shabtay


>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-itc@eda.org [mailto:owner-itc@eda.org] On Behalf Of Per
Bojsen
>Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 5:57 PM
>To: itc@eda.org
>Subject: RE: HDL Support (was RE: Meeting minutes 050825)
>
>[I removed the CC lists since everybody is on the mailing list.  No
need
>for duplicate emails :-)]
>
>> SCE-MI 2.0 compliance should mean supporting all the 3 languages
>> (SystemVerilog, VHDL or Verilog 2001). We should not support the
concept
>> of building SCE-MI 2.0 as SystemVerilog only standard or define
SCE-MI
>> 2.0 compliance in the domain of only one language (SystemVerilog for
>> example).
>
>I think you misunderstood my question.  I agree that the standard
should
>define support for all three HDLs and continue to have C and C++
>bindings on the software side.  But I was wondering if the standard
>requires an implementation to implement the support for all the
>languages described in the standard or whether an implementation that
>only has support for SystemVerilog and C++ for instance could still
>be considered a compliant implementation (assuming it was compliant
>in all other respects, of course).  It doesn't really matter since it
>is really up to the customer to decide.  As Russ indicated, a customer
>that is only interested in SystemVerilog/C++ would not care if VHDL
>is not supported by the implementation.
>
>Down the road there is another possibility where subsetting could be
>performed: an implementation could choose to only implement the
>function based interface, for example.  Again, I can see a market for
>such a subset implementation.
>
>Note, I am not advocating anything here, and I am not suggesting anyone
>should do this.  I am simply trying to understand what compliance
means.
>
>Per
>
>