RE: migration: 1364-2001 vs SV

 
Some of the things I liked in the 2001 syntax are
        being allowed to define direction and discipline in the module
port list..
module mymod ( input electrical sig1, sig2, input logic [7:0] control,
output reg [7:0] Data);
except of course that 2001 didn't address the discipline side of this..
(ie I can do "reg" or "wire" but not "electrical" or "logic" or "logiclv
reg" and "output logicio reg" (sorry I just do better with quick
examples the the full syntax description.. )

Being able to put all the properties of the signal/parameter on one line
is really nice for those of us who write models by hand!

I'll make an effort to review the proposals.. but now you know what I
would like.. of course, I'm mostly lurking here, and haven't joined the
SA, nor asked for a vote on the Committee yet.
Just depending on Jon and Martin to be my representative as best they
can.

Jonathan David Mixed-Signal IC
jbdavid@cadence.com Ph (408)894-2646

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-verilog-ams@eda.org [mailto:owner-verilog-ams@eda.org] On
Behalf Of Geoffrey.Coram
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 5:54 AM
To: Sri Chandra
Cc: VerilogAMS LRM Committee
Subject: 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 09:45:07 2005