RE: migration: 1364-2001 vs SV

Hi Geoffrey,

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).

The work that's remaining with regards to 2001 migration is the following:

* reviewing changes done by Graham to integrate the compact modelling BNF into the updated syntax. I don't think this is a big change as we retain most of the semantic restrictions from the original proposal, but just making it consistent and inline with the digital syntax.

* Migrating the changes into the individual chapters. I think this would be a bigger change in the documentation to update all the syntax boxes and references to reflect the new BNF. Also part of the change is to document the semantic restrictions on the individual items in a better fashion. I think this will be a bigger change.

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.

I agree with you. This is would be a problem with compatibility also and I would also rather prefer that we wait till the SV migration for this to happen. This needs to be discussed during our next committee meeting, because there were some requests in the past to do this and this needs to be resolved.

Is the 1364 committee amenable to accepting a donation?

I am not sure. I need to get in touch with the IEEE 1364 committee chair and see whether this is workable. Also, as part of updating the BNF, there were some updates to the digital syntax of IEEE2001, to be able to merge the two languages from a syntax point of view, and this needs to be ratified by the 1364 committee. I think the changes and the number of them were very minor if I remember correctly, but Graham can add to this and correct me if I have mistated it.

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 17:16:03 2005