Please find attached, the formal response from the VHDL committee regarding the incorporation of DPI. Cadence and Mentor should probably start to do some internal planning for strategies to get this moved up in the priority chain for their next planned revision. Brian ________________________________________ From: Lance Thompson [mailto:lancet@us.ibm.com] Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 1:02 PM To: brian_bailey@acm.org Cc: Johny Srouji Subject: Re: Fw: VHDL LRM Approval Hi Brian, Johny asked me to draft up a response to your comment about the VHDL LRM draft that is up for review. First of all, the LRM you are reviewing only contains the VHPI changes at the combined request of the users and vendors. This LRM draft was submitted to enable the VHPI work to proceed through the IEEE and IEC standardization processes. A second, call it trial use, version will be forth coming that has many technical enhancements. But DPI will not make it to that version either. I presented the DPI requirement to the VHDL TC and subsequently our internal Requirements Sub-Committee prioritized it. The goal of the Requirements SC is to validate requirements from a user perspective. To do so, the Requirements SC solicited feedback from the entire VHDL TC membership. (This included non-Accellera members of the VHDL TC. As an IEEE standard, we are obligated to be as open as possible during the development of the standard.) This step was done to keep the language updates relevant and important to the user community. The DPI proposal did not capture the imagination of the user or vendor representatives in either the VHDL TC or the Requirements SC. The group ranked many requirements at a higher level. Unfortunately, DPI fell below the cut line for the "trial use" draft of the LRM Now that we have some momentum, the VHDL TC intends to stay active and continue to work though the backlog of requirements that we have. DPI remains on the backlog for subsequent revisions. Best regards, Lance Thompson Senior Engineer Engineering & Technology Services Johny Srouji/Austin/IBM 04/20/2006 12:03 PM To Lance Thompson/Rochester/IBM cc Subject Fw: VHDL LRM Approval ----- Forwarded by Johny Srouji/Austin/IBM on 04/20/2006 12:00 PM ----- Johny Srouji/Austin/IBM 04/20/2006 12:03 PM To <brian_bailey@acm.org> cc Subject RE: VHDL LRM ApprovalLink Thanks for your feedback Brian - I shall forward this to the VHDL TC chair. --- Johny. "Brian Bailey" <brian_bailey@acm.org> 04/19/2006 09:04 AM Please respond to brian_bailey To Johny Srouji/Austin/IBM@IBMUS cc Subject RE: VHDL LRM Approval Hi Johny, The ITC committee has no problems or issues with the release of the VHDL standard except to express our regret that it does not incorporate a version of the DPI interface. We believe that this is important not only for the work that this committee is doing, but also to provide a consistent interface into the standard HDLs used in the industry. We highly recommend that the next version contain this extension. Best regards, Brian ________________________________________ From: Johny Srouji [mailto:srouji@us.ibm.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 11:37 AM To: Mike.Turpin@arm.com; kenneth_larsen@mentor.com; harrydfoster@mac.com; BCory@nvidia.com; Lance Thompson; srikanth.chandrasekaran@freescale.com; brian_bailey@acm.org Cc: Johny Srouji; Lance Thompson Subject: Fw: VHDL LRM Approval Hi All, Please see the following VHDL LRM Approval request. Per my request, Lynn has forwarded this to Accellera board members for a 30-day review before they can vote on it. Per the same process I would also like to circulate this to the Technical Committee chairs for a 20 days review. I have copied some of the co-chairs to this note, so feel free to forward to your committee co-chair if he's not copied to this note. However, I expect each committee representative (chair) to compile and send me comments and vote. If you don't have any input, let me know as well. I have copied the VHDL TC Chair, Lance Thompson, in case you may have any questions. I would like to have your inputs by the of May 8, 2006. Thanks! --- Johny. "Lynn Horobin" <lynnh@accellera.org> 04/12/2006 07:29 PM Please respond to "Lynn Horobin" To <Shrenik.Mehta@sun.com>, <dennisb@model.com>, <karen.bartleson@synopsys.com>, <vberman@cadence.com>, Johny Srouji/Austin/IBM@IBMUS cc Lance Thompson/Rochester/IBM@IBMUS, Johny Srouji/Austin/IBM@IBMUS Subject Re: VHDL LRM Approval Hi Johny: This is good news! The formal process in the Resolutions (section 17, 3rd paragraph) states that to approve a standard we must 1) send the proposed standard to the members for a 30-day review before the board votes, and 2) ask the Technical Committee to review the standard and provide a recommendation within 20 days. These two things can be done concurrently. We also need to provide "a reasonable opportunity" for any member to address comments to the board before the board votes. If we want to have the board vote by e-ballot, we can ask for comments to be submitted via e-mail. So, if you can ask your TSC chairs to review the LRM and make a recommendation by May 3, I will get the standard published to the members and keep track of the deadlines. Unfortunately we won't have time to meet the review requirements before the May 10th board meeting. Let me know if you need any clarification or have questions. Lynn ******************************************** Lynn Horobin Accellera 1370 Trancas Street #163 Napa, CA 94558 Phone (707) 251-9977 Fax (707) 251-9877 Email lynnh@accellera.org www.accellera.org ----- Original Message ----- From: Johny Srouji To: Shrenik.Mehta@sun.com ; dennisb@model.com ; karen.bartleson@synopsys.com ; vberman@cadence.com ; lynnh@accellera.org Cc: Lance Thompson ; Johny Srouji Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 3:28 PM Subject: VHDL LRM Approval Hi All, The VHDL LRM including VHPI was approved by the VHDL technical committee (see details below). The following link contains the LRM and documentation to help users understand the underlying model supporting the VHPI (total of 7MB): http://www.accellera.org/apps/org/workgroup/vhdl/download.php/488/P1076c-200 6-2.4a.zip Can you please advice on the process to get this approved by Accellera board? Do we need to wait for the next board meeting or it can be done through email? Thanks, --- Johny. ----- Forwarded by Johny Srouji/Austin/IBM on 04/12/2006 05:20 PM ----- Lance Thompson/Rochester/IBM 04/05/2006 10:08 AM To Johny Srouji/Austin/IBM cc Subject Fw: [vhdl] amended VHPI results Hi Johny, We've (the VHDL TC) have just approved a new draft of the VHDL LRM that adds VHPI to the VHDL-2002 specification of the language. We'd like to put that in front of the Accellera Board for their approval and release the document back to the IEEE for them to take it through the standardization process. How do we bring the vhdl tc approved draft to the board? Cheers, Lance Thompson Senior Engineer Engineering & Technology Services ----- Forwarded by Lance Thompson/Rochester/IBM on 04/05/2006 10:05 AM ----- Lance Thompson/Rochester/IBM@IBMUS 04/05/2006 10:04 AM The ballot for the amended VHPI closed yesterday at 12:00 Central Daylight Time. There were 5 votes to approve, 0 votes to reject, and 3 non-responses. Since a majority of the eligible ballot pool (5 of 8) unanimously approved the ballot and there were no votes to reject the ballot, the VHDL Technical Committee has approved draft P1076c-2006-2.4a for submission the the Accellera Board for approval and release to the IEEE for ballot. The companies eligible to vote responded as follows: Aldec (J. Kaczynski) - approve Mentor Graphics (S. Bailey, J. Ries) - non-response Rockwell Collins (W. Logan, R. Clark) - approve SynthWorks (J. Lewis) - approve Cadence (A. Varikat, V. Berman) - non-response (but responded approve to the aborted ballot) IBM (A. El-zein, S. Barnfield) - approve Nokia (J. Kalinainen) - non-response Xilinx (S. Deshpande, P. Vidyanandan) - approve For completeness, these ineligible companies to vote, did not respond as well: L-3 Communications (R. Hinton, R. Henrie) Synopsys (M. Walia) Lance Thompson Senior Engineer Engineering & Technology ServicesReceived on Fri May 5 09:24:14 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri May 05 2006 - 09:24:21 PDT