Date: Thu Jan 06 2011 - 09:52:26 PST
I think Karen meant PLI, not DPI.
My definition:
"to deprecate" is a deliberate removal of a concept, terminology or feature that had been described in a previous version of the standard from the current standard. A reference to a deprecated feature may be included in an informative section of the current standard as being deprecated.
Note that you cannot “deprecate” something from a previous version of a standard, and an implementation can still be in compliance with the current standard even though it supports deprecated features. (as long as there is no conflict with newer features).
A standard is not a list of recommendations – it is a list of requirements that are needed to achieve interoperability between producers and consumers .
Dave Rich
Verification Technologist
Mentor Graphics Corporation
New Office Number: 510-354-7439
<http://www.twitter.com/dave_59> <http://go.mentor.com/drich>
From: owner-sv-cc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-cc@eda.org] On Behalf Of Karen Pieper
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 8:44 AM
To: Jim Vellenga; Bresticker, Shalom; Steven Dovich; Chuck Berking
Cc: sv-cc@eda.org; Charlie Dawson
Subject: Re: [sv-cc] RE: [sv-champions] Email vote - Ending December 13th
I thought that deprecated meant "no longer recommended," and likely to be removed in the future. We deprecated the DPI and then eventually removed it, correct? If so, I agree that we need consistent use through the LRM.
Thanks,
Karen
________________________________
From: Jim Vellenga <vellenga@cadence.com>
To: "Bresticker, Shalom" <shalom.bresticker@intel.com>; Steven Dovich <dovich@cadence.com>; Chuck Berking <berking@cadence.com>
Cc: "sv-cc@eda.org" <sv-cc@eda.org>; Charlie Dawson <chas@cadence.com>
Sent: Thu, January 6, 2011 8:18:12 AM
Subject: RE: [sv-cc] RE: [sv-champions] Email vote - Ending December 13th
Hmm, yes. 2651 points out that we use “deprecated” to mean either “not recommended” or
“no longer recommended” or even “no longer part of the standard.” And our usage is
not consistent.
It would be nice to clear that up, but that is not really the province of any one committee,
is it? Should we ask SV-BC for guidance?
Jim Vellenga
From: owner-sv-cc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-cc@eda.org] On Behalf Of Bresticker, Shalom
Sent: Thursday, 6 Jan 2011 11:03 AM
To: Steven Dovich; Chuck Berking
Cc: sv-cc@eda.org; Charlie Dawson
Subject: RE: [sv-cc] RE: [sv-champions] Email vote - Ending December 13th
See also Mantis 2651.
Shalom
From: Steven J. Dovich [mailto:dovich@cadence.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 6:01 PM
To: Chuck Berking
Cc: Bresticker, Shalom; sv-cc@eda.org; Charlie Dawson
Subject: Re: [sv-cc] RE: [sv-champions] Email vote - Ending December 13th
Shalom is right, deprecations should be identified in Annex C. The PLI TF and ACC deprecations head that list, and the assorted VPI items should be added there for consistency.
Steven J. Dovich | Sr Member of Consulting Staff, Advanced Verification Systems | Cadence
P: 978.262.6413 M: 978.494.0519 www.cadence.com
On 1/6/2011 10:55 AM, Chuck Berking wrote:
As I mentioned, I did see and fix this error in my latest proposal replacement:
#define vpiInterfaceDeclvpiVirtualInterfaceVar /* interface decl deprecated */"
Apparently there is a bug in Framemaker that does not map tab characters to at least an intervening space when generating .pdf files (it appears OK in my original Frame text).
Re. #2:
I see no precedent for noting VPI or PLI #defined symbol deprecation in C.2. I.e. there is a handful of these in VPI that are not mentioned here (e.g. vpiArray property). [ SV-CCers- should they be- or is this overkill ? ]
- CB
Chuck Berking | Member of Consulting Staff | Cadence
P: 978.262.6522 M: 603.253.9130 www.cadence.com <http://www.cadence.com>
-----Original Message-----
From: Bresticker, Shalom [mailto:shalom.bresticker@intel.com <mailto:shalom.bresticker@intel.com> ]
Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 3:50 AM
To: Chuck Berking
Cc: sv-cc@eda.org <mailto:sv-cc@eda.org> ; Charlie Dawson
Subject: RE: [sv-champions] Email vote - Ending December 13th
Two more points on the new proposal:
1. In the change to M.2:
"REPLACE:
#define vpiInterfaceDecl 728
WITH:
#define vpiInterfaceDeclvpiVirtualInterfaceVar /* interface decl deprecated */"
There should be a space between "vpiInterfaceDecl" and "vpiVirtualInterfaceVar".
2. If vpiInterfaceDecl is being deprecated, a new subclause describing it should probably be added to C.2.
Thanks,
Shalom
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner <http://www.mailscanner.info/> , and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner <http://www.mailscanner.info/> , and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner <http://www.mailscanner.info/> , and is
believed to be clean.
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
