[sv-cc] [Fwd: Issue 50: Action Item]

Hi All,

Karen has asked that we consider this alternative proposal for Item 50.
The Champions will be discussing tomorrow and may make a recommendation
that we consider it. If you want input into their discussion, we have
been invited to join them. Please see below.

   -Chas

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Issue 50: Action Item
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 14:26:01 -0800
From: Karen Pieper <Karen.Pieper@synopsys.com>
To: sv-champions@eda.org
CC: chas

Hi, Champions,

At the last P1800 meeting, Oz Levia was given the action item (from the
unapproved minutes):

Action Request [Oz Levia]: On 3 December 2005, Oz is to send out an
impact analysis and come up with possible non-obtrusive suggestions to
resolve issue 50.

The P1800 has asked that the Champions review Oz's findings and make a
recommendation, for example, the Champions can indicate that the SV-CC
should review the proposal. Please review the following email and the
attached proposal so that we can discuss it as the first issue discussed
in the Champions meeting on Tuesday.

I have cc'ed Charles Dawson on this mail, and will discuss with him the
possibility of inviting members of the SV-CC to our champions meeting
for this discussion.

Charles, here is the meeting info:

SV Champions Meeting December 7 from 10am to 12 noon Pacific time. The
callin information is:
PARTICIPANT CODE: 53904
Toll Free Dial In Number: (888)635-9997
International Access/Caller Paid Dial In Number: (763)315-6815

Thanks,

Karen

> From: "Oz Levia" <ozlevia@synopsys.COM>
> To: "'Srouji, Johny'" <johny.srouji@intel.com>
> Cc: "'Brophy, Dennis'" <dennisb@model.com>,
> "'Karen Pieper'" <pieper@synopsys.COM>,
> "'Oz Levia'" <ozlevia@synopsys.COM>
> Subject: Issue 50: Action Item
> Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 12:09:40 -0800
> X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626
> Importance: Normal
>
> Johny,
>
>
>
> As agreed I would like to provide this follow up on my action item
> from the last P1800 meeting regarding issue 50. I copy Dennis so this
> can be recorded and Karen so that she can forward to the Champions and
> the Chairs of CC in advance of Monday s meeting.
>
>
>
> We have spoken to over two dozen customers that have known use of
> legacy bit representation (aka Vec32) that is documented in
> SystemVerilog 3.1 and 3.1a. Time did not permit the negotiation of
> release of names or projects. To a limited extent I can do so
> verbally. The concern from customers is that old code will work
> differently in 3.1 or 3.1a vs. P1800 without a way for the user to
> tell. The code will link but will not produce correct results. In
> other words the change is insidious.
>
>
>
> Overall, we propose to retain the alignment between DPI and VPI and
> retain of the resolution on issue 50 (as resolved by CC), but would
> suggest a modification that will strengthen the alignment and at the
> same time resolve customer concerns about back ward compatibility.
>
>
>
> The proposal is attached, but in short it can be summarized:
>
>
>
> · A user call will be added that will return the version of SV
> being implemented by the simulator. This is generally useful.
>
> · DPI data type (with the 3.1(a) byte / bit order) and function
> will remain as is and will remain compatible with 3.1 and 3.1a, but
> will be deprecated in P1800 version of the standard. Old code will
> continue to link and work as before, but implementations will not be
> required to support this Interface going forward. Traditionally,
> deprecation is used for exactly that purpose. Over time, deprecated
> portions can be removed from the standard.
>
> · VPI data type will be used with similarly named (new)
> functions. This will achieve perfect alignment with VPI and DPI since
> hence forward they will use the same data type. No confusion can be
> claimed.
>
> · That it&
>
>
>
> Please see attachment.
>
>
>
> -Oz.
>
>
>
>

-- 
Charles Dawson
Senior Engineering Manager
NC-Verilog Team
Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
270 Billerica Road
Chelmsford, MA  01824
(978) 262 - 6273
chas@cadence.com