Subject: Re: Prioritization issues:
From: Steve Grout (grouts@flash.net)
Date: Tue Aug 14 2001 - 18:56:35 PDT
David and others -
As one of those raising issues about backannotation (including
hierachical performance backannotation) in today's
and coming technologies, as I indicated earlier I would, I
am quite willing to at this time put all my energy to work
for 'forward progress' on the enclosed prioritized grouping of 21 issues
in order to cleanly take care of those items that more quickly
clarify the LRM, including the simulation cycle.
Regards,
--Steve Grout
David Smith wrote:
>
> We have worked up some responses. I am sending only the top issues that we feel need to be address, some comments as appropriate, and an indication on those we agree or disagree with (even if not a priority).
>
> The basis for this analysis is the following:
>
> * the standard should be implementable by any development organization and be compatible with other vendor implementations. Seems simple, but with the Verilog-D underpinnings, one key is getting a well defined simulation cycle that is integrated with 1364 spec. The unified text should be reviewed.
> * somewhat related, the simulation cycle should be compatible with the VHDL-AMS simulation cycle to allow effective language interoperability. This does not mean that Verilog-D and VHDL-D differences should be coerced in any way, of course. But the interaction between analog solver time and digital time should be compatible. If the standards, for example, respond to the time of analog threshold crossing by requiring the event time to be calculated differently for the two languages, that would be a bad result.
> * Issues with the Verilog-A subset are less important, particularly as they relate to compatiblity with existing customer designs. We want clarity in the spec.
> * to get forward progress, by not trying to do everything in one revision. It is a bad idea to add features before disambiguating those that are defined. It is not black and white, but, for example, taking on the back annotation agenda now seems ill advised. A better LRM will result in a more timely manner if we do not overdilute the effort. There are just not enough people competent to work on this.
>
> The following document indicates our responses. It only covers our first 21 priorities. But that is enough to get working on. We do have some comments on non-prioritized items as well as indication of agreement or disagreement.
>
> We have provided both Excel and HTML formats.
>
> Regards
>
> David
>
> <<AMSLRM_ISSUES1_Response.xls>> <<AMSLRM_ISSUES1_Response.htm>>
>
> David W. Smith
> Architect
>
> > Avant! Corporation
> 9205 SW Gemini Drive
> Beaverton, OR 97008
>
> Voice: 503.520.2715
> FAX: 503.643.3361
> Email: david_smith@avanticorp.com
> http://www.avanticorp.com
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Name: AMSLRM_ISSUES1_Response.xls
> AMSLRM_ISSUES1_Response.xls Type: Microsoft Excel Worksheet (application/vnd.ms-excel)
> Encoding: base64
>
> Name: AMSLRM_ISSUES1_Response.htm
> AMSLRM_ISSUES1_Response.htm Type: Hypertext Markup Language (text/html)
> Encoding: quoted-printable
-- --Steve Grout CAD Methodology, Verification, and Architecture Consultant - CAD System, Database, Flows, Tools, Integration, Verification, and Support for both digital and Analog/Mixed-Signal. 101 Kenneil Court Apex, NC 27502 Phone: 919-303-5066 email: grouts@flash.net http://www.flash.net/~sgrout/Personal/resume2001.txt (or doc,rtf,pdf)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Aug 14 2001 - 18:58:08 PDT