Subject: RE: [sv-cc] DPI - supported data types
From: Warmke, Doug (doug_warmke@mentorg.com)
Date: Tue Apr 01 2003 - 22:29:10 PST
Swapnajit,
I agree with Francoise. In effect, Andrzej has started
the cross-checking process on his own initiative, and he
has found some problems that need to be rectified.
Let's fall back on the old maxim, "Error on the side of
restrictiveness for the first cut of the standard, then
loosen things up later when more knowledge is available."
That is the essence of what Andrzej is proposing.
I hope we can incorporate the results of Andrzej's
cross-checking into draft 5 of the LRM.
Regards,
Doug
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francoise Martinolle [mailto:fm@cadence.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 10:13 AM
> To: Swapnajit Mittra; Andrzej.Litwiniuk@synopsys.com
> Cc: sv-cc@server.eda.org
> Subject: Re: [sv-cc] DPI - supported data types
>
>
> I believe that the clarification that Andrzej pointed out
> needs to make it
> in the LRM
>
>
> At 12:06 AM 4/1/2003 -0800, Swapnajit Mittra wrote:
>
> > Andrzej,
> >
> >On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 15:57:08 -0500 (EST) Andrzej Litwiniuk
> ><Andrzej.Litwiniuk@synopsys.com> writes:
> > > Team,
> > >
> > > It's very late, possibly too late for any non-trivial revisions to
> > > DPI,
> >
> > Unfortunately, this is indeed too late. While making changes on
> > small wordings like the one you suggested should not be
> > a problem (as long as it is -very- well-defined), any implication
> > because of such changes will be a different story. We just do
> > not have any other way than to postpone them to 3.2.
> >
> > I happen to work for two other non-EDA standard committees
> > (PCI-X 2.0 and PCI-Express 1.0a) where any clarification with
> > potential big impact is done through release of separate
> > white paper (essentially addendum) between major releases. If
> > all of us agree this is something that can be done
> > in our case (between 3.1 and 3.2), I will ask Vassilios for his
> > permission.
> >
> > > A meticulous cross-checking is something that we really need.
> >(Swapnajit,
> > > is it what sv-ac team is supposed to do for us?)
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Andrzej
> >
> > Yes, SV-AC will cross check our part of the LRM looking for
> > any inconsistency. There are few other volunteers (outside SV
> > committees) who are supposed to do the same.
> >
> > Having said that, it is unclear to me, however, how rigorous that
> > process is going to be. As all of us are hard-pressed
> for time, my
> > feeling is, in the end, it would be upto us to decide
> how clean we
> > want the LRM to be.
> >--
> >Swapnajit Mittra
> >Project VeriPage ::: http://www.angelfire.com/ca/verilog
> >
> >________________________________________________________________
> >Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
> >Only $9.95 per month!
> >Visit www.juno.com
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Apr 01 2003 - 22:29:50 PST