Subject: Re: [sv-cc] Meeting minutes, July 16, 2003
From: Andrzej Litwiniuk (Andrzej.Litwiniuk@synopsys.com)
Date: Wed Jul 16 2003 - 13:48:23 PDT
> I'm curious why no mention was made of my email
> on the BNF issue, nor my suggested changes in
> the grammar. I don't think the changes were quite
> ridiculous enough to deserve no discussion at all.
Doug,
Although your email on the BNF issue is not explicitly mentioned
in the minutes, it was your email because of which the issue was
brought up today.
Joao and I had a short discussion before todays meeting
and in our opinion the way to go is to have a single common set
of productions both for native function headers and for import DPI headers
with semantical restrictions.
We believe that it would be easier and more convenient to add semantical
checks rather than to duplicate virtually a lot of productions.
Actually, this is a typical approach in language definitions,
for example, a syntax for expressions typically allows much more than
is actually permitted in a language.
I don't think any binding decisions have been made today, nevertheless
my impression is that no one objected the approach "common productions
+ semantical restrictions"
What do you think on that approach?
Thanks,
Andrzej
> Even if they were, I'd like to hear the reasons -
> then I would learn something important.
>
> Thanks and regards,
> Doug
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francoise Martinolle
> To: sv-cc@eda.org
> Sent: 7/16/2003 9:32 AM
> Subject: [sv-cc] Meeting minutes, July 16, 2003
>
> Approval of minutes: Andrzej
> Michael seconded
>
> Attendees: Swapnajit, Michael, Joao Ghassan, Francoise
>
> Swapnajit:
> role of the champion:
> Our champion (Joao) would be involved for any changes of the sv 3.1
> LRM.
> He would take take part in any discussion affecting the 3.1 LRM. If
> anything needs to be changed, the champions would be looking at other
> committees sections and resolve the issue.
> The chair has to approve the change.
>
> How erratas will be done? same mode of working as before
>
> sv list of issues compilled
>
> garbage for chandles: was editorial mistake
> Joao to submit the editorial change.
>
> Who is in charge to integrate erratas in the LRM? Probably Stuart.
>
> Dave Smith is collecting erratas.
>
> Question on the BNF:
> Andrzej: two specialized productions
> or uniform set of production with semantical restrictions : on
> the
> type of formal arguments and passing argument mode not permitted for
> DPI.
> Andrzej and Joao by Friday will send to the cc committee a proposed set
> of
> changes to correct this problem. By next meeting have a proposed errata.
> 1
> week review period set by Accellera shall be obeyed.
>
> Joao prefers the uniform production.
> Swapnajit: if any changes in the set of rules inthe BNF, does it have
> any
> impact on the other parts of the bnf.
> Changes to the basic production defining function will have an impact.
> single change in a single place.
>
> Joao stated that this change needs to be agreed by other committees.
>
> deadline for next meeting to review list of issues which was sent out
>
> Meeting ajourned.
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Jul 16 2003 - 14:16:36 PDT