RE: P1666 Ballot resolution discussion

All,

comments below.

From: owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org [mailto:owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org] On Behalf Of john.aynsley@doulos.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 10:22 PM
To: P1666 Technical WG
Subject: Re: P1666 Ballot resolution discussion

All,

The biggest set of issues we have to address were pointed to by Cadence in their ballot comments, and were raised as a result of implementing the proposed changes to 1666 within the OSCI proof-of-concept simulator (by Andy, Bishnupriya, Philipp, and myself). These issues split into the process corner cases, clarifications to the LRM wording, and minor specification changes.

In this email, I will address just the process control corner cases.

While implementing the proof-of-concept simulator, we have discovered a number of corner-case interactions between the process control methods where the LRM is currently ambiguous. On further investigation, we have uncovered some deep issues that we have been unable to resolve based on the statements given in the LRM as it stands. It may be that a deeper analysis of the use cases for the process control methods might provide a resolution, but in the absence of that analysis, we propose that certain interactions between the process control methods become implemention-defined in the LRM. This will leave room for more specific semantics to be defined in the future as and when the uses cases are clarified.
[...]

The above is the proposed resolution. Does anyone object or have further specific comments?


Nope, nothing more intelligent to propose (thus my silence at the LWG level as well). I will make the very obvious comment that the LRM should be as clear as this
email; maybe a dedicated section with John’s summary?

Jerome

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.