migration: 1364-2001 vs SV

How much work is there in a 2001 migration? My sense is that
most of the changes in the syntax Graham has worked on were
changes from syntactic to semantic restrictions: ie, everything
that worked before will still work, and everything that was
disallowed before will be disallowed (though for a different
reason).

There are a few things we need to watch out for, eg, I'd prefer
we not use $sin, $cos in the next update but wait until SV-AMS.

Is the 1364 committee amenable to accepting a donation?

We should also look into what parts of AMS could be integrated
piece by piece, such as the trig functions, without disrupting
Verilog.

-Geoffrey

Sri Chandra wrote:
> * SystemVerilog related discussions
> - Would migration to 2001 be done if its going to take as much effort very soon to again migrate to a SV?
> - Tho' users have been requesting this its felt that its not a high priority items for any of the design/vendor communities to raise the importance of this work within IEEE.
> - Currently the roadmap for SV/AMS integration seems to be very unclear. SV committee was contacted with regards to this priority, but it was felt that its not a high priority item for the P1800 committee to address AMS in 2005.
> - It was felt that this might have to be done within the AMS committee through a DPI based approach (similar to C).
Received on Tue Jan 18 06:47:38 2005