[sv-cc] Cliff's Config Proposal #4 (simplification)

PROPOSAL - Mantis #680 - 5/8/2005 by Cliff Cummings

Observations:
-       We do not have complete agreement on the discussed configurations 
proposal
-       There are already at least two implementations that recognize the 
keywords: config, endconfig, cell
-       The two implementations have minor use-model differences that will 
have no consequence to 99%+ of all Verilog designs
-       Most engineers will separate library files from config files from 
design files, and the divergent use-models are actually very similar when 
engineers make the separations
-       config, endconfig and cell are already passed keywords in the 
Verilog-2001 Standard
-       We do not want to set a precedent of reviewing keywords after they 
have become part of an IEEE Standard and after they have been implemented 
by one or more vendors
-       The current proposed changes are too significant to be added to a 
re-circulation ballot of the standard and do not promote consensus.
-       The current proposed changes will change at least one yes-vote to a 
no-vote on both the 1364 and 1800 re-circulation ballots. The no-votes will 
be related to changes in the standard and will have to be addressed in a 
third re-circulation ballot.
-       There is already at least one book and multiple copies of training 
materials that show the use of the config-endconfig implementation of 
configurations. All of these published materials become obsolete if the 
keywords change.
-       There are other config-issues that should be addressed in a 
more-encompassing proposal, including the issues of wildcard directories 
and file-naming to wildcard matching restrictions (both hinted at by Steve 
Sharp).

Proposal options (I vote yes to either proposal under the conditions noted 
below).

(1)     Do nothing (not even BNF or typo fixes) and respond to the negative 
ballot with the template form: "Although the proposed changes have merit, 
they are beyond the scope  (etc., etc.) ..."

This option is the safest because no new negative votes can be registered 
against the 1364 and 1800 standards based on any configuration issues.

(2)     Make the minor BNF changes and typo fixes shown (in the attached 
file) and still respond with the above template form.

I am willing to support this option only if a straw-poll show that there 
will be no new configuration section objections raised by the changes. If 
Cadence or any other entity indicates that they would register a new 
negative vote due to the BNF and typo changes, then I will vote no to even 
these minor changes.

See attached proposal file for details.

Regards - Cliff

----------------------------------------------------
Cliff Cummings - Sunburst Design, Inc.
14314 SW Allen Blvd., PMB 501, Beaverton, OR 97005
Phone: 503-641-8446 / FAX: 503-641-8486
cliffc@sunburst-design.com / www.sunburst-design.com
Expert Verilog, SystemVerilog, Synthesis and Verification Training