Subject: RE: [sv-cc] Meeting minutes from 23-Jul-2003 - SV-CC
From: Bassam Tabbara (bassam@novas.com)
Date: Tue Jul 29 2003 - 07:00:24 PDT
Hi All,
I will be out of town this Wed on a short notice, so I won't make the
meeting. Talk to you next time.
Regards,
-Bassam.
-- Dr. Bassam Tabbara Technical Manager, R&D Novas Software, Inc.http://www.novas.com (408) 467-7893
> -----Original Message----- > From: owner-sv-cc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-cc@eda.org] On > Behalf Of Michael Rohleder > Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 9:43 AM > To: SystemVerilog CC DWG > Subject: [sv-cc] Meeting minutes from 23-Jul-2003 - SV-CC > > > Attendees: > > Ghassan Khoory > Francoise Martinole > Andrzej Litwiniuk > Joao Geada > Michael Rohleder > Swapnajit Mittra > Ralph Duncan > John Amouroux > Doug Warmke > Bassam Tabbara > > > 1) Acceptance of meeting minutes from last call (with the > amendment to add Andrzej to the attendees list): Andrzej > proposed, Joao seconded > > 2) Swapnajit welcomed Ralph Duncan joining the committee from > Mentor Graphics. His background is mainly on compilers (I > missed the rest, sorry ...). > > 3) Swapnajit informed us that a closed mailing list has been > created consisting of chairs, co-chairs, champions and V. > Idea is to have a more tigher integration and information > exchange at this level, and to solve cross-committee issues faster. > > 4) Swapnajit requested for feedback about the current list of > errata, things we want to improve. No feedback until now. > > 5) AI #2 (Feedback from SV-BC) > Swapnajit asked for more detail on this issue. > Francoise said there are two topics here a) what is the root > cause of the problem b) what is the desired modification. It > might be that we want to have the 'function' keyword back, > even when it is redundant. > > a) Joao asked for comments whether function keyword should > stay in or should be removed. There were some statements for > keeping the function keyword, no objection against. > > b) Andrzej asked how to modify the BNF: Do we want to have > our own specialized versions or should we rely on a common > set of productions with only some semantical restrictions. . > Doug asked for a more completely layed out BNF modifications. > . Andrzej clarified that we don't control the 'export' > function, so we always will need semantical restrictions for > this. . Doug stated that the export grammar is rather simple > and terminates early. In contrast to this the import > functions are much more complicated. He thinks the BNF might > be misleading in this case. . Andrzej thinks there are just > two productions, that's it. . Joao says there are > constraints on the type to get through. You can not express > this within the grammar. Doug agrees. . Joao: the questions > is whether . Doug requested some footnotes at the > productions that are explaining the restrictions. This will > be a great aid. . Ralph: It would be helpful to see the > differences between the formals of a real function vs. a DPI > function. . Joao: The main difference between > main_function_proto is that you can not provide . Ralph is > worried whether we are rigourous enough with the syntactical > changes that could be validated by the BNF. It looks like we > are trying to have a wide open syntax, but define the > restrictions in the semantic. . Michael wants to have a > simple language BNF, but a very clear notation showing the > differences between SV side and DPI. It could be done by > footnotes, but it should clearly show the differences (and > eventually forbidden productions). . Joao: we could use > comments for this. . Ralph is O.K. with this. This would > take his concerns about less clarity off the table. . Joao > proposed to send a modified version of the BNF soon, so that > everybody can review it. Seems like there is some motion to > solve the problem this way ... > > Ralph mentioned that he found another minor issue with > respect to a non_terminal (packed_dimension). Swap requested > some more information about this and how we should modify it. > Some minor comments from Joao and Francoise on this during > the remainder of the call. > > Andrzej wanted to know how SV has validated the grammar (did > we run it through a parser generator). Francoise thought > there was a prototype for SV 3.0, but does not believe there > was one for SV 3.1... > > Meeting adjourned > > Best regards, > -Michael > > -- > > NOTE: The content of this message may contain personal views > which are not neccessarily the views of Motorola, > unless specifically stated. > > ___________________________________________________ > | | > _ | Michael Rohleder Tel: +49-89-92103-259 | _ > / )| Software Technologist Fax: +49-89-92103-680 |( \ > / / | Motorola, Semiconductor Products, System Design | \ \ > _( (_ | _ Schatzbogen 7, D-81829 Munich, Germany _ | _) )_ > (((\ \>|_/ > < \_|</ /))) > (\\\\ \_/ / mailto:Michael.Rohleder@motorola.com \ \_/ ////) > \ /_______________________________________________\ / > \ _/ \_ / > / / \ \ > > The information contained in this email has been classified > as: Motorola General Business Information (x) > Motorola Internal Use Only ( ) > Motorola Confidential Proprietary ( ) > > > *** This note may contain Motorola Confidential Proprietary or > Motorola Internal Use Only Information and is intended to be > reviewed by only the individual or organization named above. > If you are not the intended recipient or an authorized > representative > of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that > any review, > dissemination or copying of this email and its > attachments, if any, > or the information contained herein is prohibited. If you > have received > this email in error, please immediately notify the sender by > return email and delete this email from your system. > Thank you! *** > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Jul 29 2003 - 07:02:08 PDT