Mantis Item 680: Configs and Verilog source file Approve:________________ Disapprove:______X______ Abstain:_________________ I do not feel this the changes that would be made by this proposal have been sufficiently examined, and that it does not have a true consensus, even within the committee. This proposal adds new keywords, removes other keywords and adds restrictions that are not backward compatible. Adding new keywords is a necessary growing pain. Removing keywords is not necessary and will break many existing Verilog-2001 implementations. Adding new restrictions will also break existing implementations. More importantly, the changes proposed will affect a much broader audience than the few companies actively participating in the standards effort. Hundreds, more likely thousands, of companies rely on this standards committee maintaining a reasonable degree of backward compatibility with previous versions of the standard. We have a moral, if not IEEE mandated, obligation to represent the interests of ALL users and implementers of the standard. Even if consensus were reached on these radical changes within this committee, I do not feel that there has been sufficient, if any, effort made to see if the Verilog user and implementer community as a whole will accept on such a radical change. The 1364 committee should be aware that should this proposal pass in its current form at this committee level, I will vote against this current proposal at the champions level, the P1800 working group level, and as an entity vote on the 1364 recirculation ballot. There are two possibilities that will change my vote to a YES on this proposal: a) Do not resolve 680 at this time. Instead, treat this as a show-stopper, and request an extension from the P1800 working group to give time to reach full consensus within the committee and from a much wider audience of users and implementers on how to resolve the issue. b) Only correct the syntax and example errors at this time, and consider the more radical changes in a future version of the standard. Cliff has put together a full proposal that does this, and for which I would vote YES. My preference is for the second alternative. Mantis Item 687: Compatibility directive and keywords Approve:_______X_______ Disapprove:______________ Abstain:_________________ I vote to approve the version of the proposal that does not have the item 680 keyword changes. Stu ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Stuart Sutherland stuart@sutherland-hdl.com +1-503-692-0898 _____ From: owner-sv-cc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-cc@eda.org] On Behalf Of Fitzpatrick, Tom Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2005 6:55 AM To: btf@boyd.com; etf@boyd.com; sv-champions@eda.org; sv-cc@eda.org Cc: tfitz@Model.com Subject: [sv-cc] Last 2 email votes for 1364 Hi Gang, The last two items for email vote are 680 and 687. 680 is the updated Config proposal (see Config.pdf, attached in Mantis), and 687 is the compatability/keywords proposal. There are two proposals for 687, contingent on whether 680 passes. The only differences between these two proposals are the names of the keywords. The Champions meeting starts at 1pm PDT, so if we could get email votes in by noon PDT on Monday 5/9, that will give us time to update the Mantis database for the Champions to consider. Email ballot: Mantis Item 680: Configs and Verilo source file Approve:________________ Disapprove:______________ Abstain:_________________ Mantis Item 687: Compatability directive and keywords Approve:________________ Disapprove:______________ Abstain:_________________ Thanks, -Tom Tom Fitzpatrick Verification Technologist Mentor Graphics Corporation <mailto:tfitz@model.com> tfitz@model.com W: (978)448-8797 C: (978)337-7641Received on Mon May 9 08:58:28 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 09 2005 - 08:58:32 PDT