Re: migration: 1364-2001 vs SV

Geoffrey,

The 2001 features fall into several buckets:

1) Only apply to digital and thus have no impact on analog

Some of the system task and PLI features are purely digital.

2) Apply to core Verilog and while having no semantic impact on analog they
must be accounted for by solutions.

Most of the ANSI Port enhancements fall into this bucket and depending on
your implementation you might get for free if you are using a Verilog 2001
parser. Also things like the power operator

3) Apply to core Verilog and need analog semantics defined for usage in analog.

Things like file I/O (when do you allow reading or writing of a file?
before simulation, during iterations, only after accepted
timepoints,....). Multi-dimensional arrays, genvar and others need the
analog effect defined or for these to be prohibited. Most are pretty easy
to define and add value to analog users so I would prefer to support them
vs state they are not supported in analog.

Jon

At 05:54 AM 1/18/2005, Geoffrey.Coram wrote:
>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).

***********************************************************
Jonathan L. Sanders
Product Engineering Director
Custom IC Solutions
Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
555 River Oaks Pkwy
San Jose, CA. 95134
  INTERNET:jons@cadence.com Tel: (408) 428-5654 Fax : (408) 944-7027
***********************************************************
Received on Tue Jan 18 12:15:12 2005