Re: Minutes of the Verilog-AMS meeting: 10th July 2008

I didn't know if 1364-2005 had other $identifiers not in the main
"system tasks and functions" clause.

But, I agree with you that the extra references should be cut from
the LRM; we should create a mantis item to track down why these
references were there (was there something in that Clause in
1364-1995 or -2001?).  The whole set of references were added in
some LRM 2.3 draft -- LRM 2.2 has only a reference to Section 10
of the V-AMS LRM, so clearly someone did some work to add these
references ...

-Geoffrey




Bresticker, Shalom wrote:
> But the references in question are in the dashed item referring to
> 1364-2005, not internally to the V-AMS LRM. So the extra references to
> 1364-2005 are still wrong. Am I being dense?
> 
> Shalom 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Geoffrey.Coram [mailto:geoffrey.coram@analog.com] 
>> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 6:19 PM
>> To: Bresticker, Shalom
>> Cc: Sri Chandra; Verilog-AMS LRM Committee; Wilmore, Jim
>> Subject: Re: Minutes of the Verilog-AMS meeting: 10th July 2008
>>
>> It was probably my fault that this was listed as 
>> low-priority; it seemed like a lot of work to track down the 
>> original intent, and it didn't occur to me that copying the 
>> existing text to Mantis would be a better way to mark the 
>> issue for later attention than leaving it in the LRM.
>>
>> I had a vague sense that maybe there were $functions 
>> mentioned in scattered chapters, specific to the main topic 
>> of the chapter -- things like $param_given that is mentioned 
>> in 6.3.5 -- and wondered if there were any $functions that 
>> were not also described in Clause 9.  If an $identifier is 
>> defined outside the list of places in 2.8.3, is someone going 
>> to be upset?
>>
>> -Geoffrey
>>
>>
>>
>> Bresticker, Shalom wrote:
>>> Hi, Sri.
>>>
>>> The correct references are already there.
>>> The additional references are erroneous.
>>>
>>> Regardless, there is no point in leaving references that 
>> are clearly 
>>> wrong.
>>> If you are not going to change them, then delete them now, 
>> and you can 
>>> always add others later.
>>>
>>> If you had written 2+2=5 and discovered the error, you would either 
>>> correct it to 4 or delete it. You would not leave a 
>> sentence that you 
>>> know to be wrong. It is different than a sentence which is 
>> partially 
>>> correct and partially incorrect, where you might say that there is 
>>> some benefit in leaving it.
>>>
>>> Can you point to a single benefit from leaving the 
>> incorrect references?
>>> Regards,
>>> Shalom
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Sri Chandra [mailto:sri.chandra@freescale.com]
>>>> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 6:09 AM
>>>> To: Bresticker, Shalom
>>>> Cc: Verilog-AMS LRM Committee; Wilmore, Jim
>>>> Subject: Re: Minutes of the Verilog-AMS meeting: 10th July 2008
>>>>
>>>> Shalom,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your response and clarifying the text on that.
>>>>
>>>> We had a bit of discussion on this item and we were not clear what 
>>>> the references are intended for, and what the correct references 
>>>> should be for both the system tasks and functions.
>>>> It was acknowledged during the meeting that the references 
>> may be in 
>>>> error (due to chapter
>>>> addition/deletions) or sections having been moved. However, it was 
>>>> felt in the discussions that it was probably a minor issue which 
>>>> might take more time to actually figure out the correct ones and 
>>>> leave them there.
>>>> May be not the best approach but since during the 
>> discussions it was 
>>>> felt as a minor item.
>>>>
>>>> I understand your concern, and greatly appreciate the 
>> feedback that 
>>>> we would like to incorporate in the LRM, and apologize 
>> that you find 
>>>> this particular decision ridiculous.
>>>> I will take another look at this particular issue that you have 
>>>> mentioned.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Sri
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bresticker, Shalom wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Regarding the cross-references to IEEE Std 1364-2005 claues
>>>> for system
>>>>> tasks and functions and compiler directives, the internal
>>>> references
>>>>> appear immediately following the texts in question:
>>>>>
>>>>> The $identifier system task or function can be defined in
>>>> five places
>>>>> - A standard set of $identifier system tasks and functions,
>>>> as defined
>>>>> in Clause 8, Clause 10, Clause 17 and Clause 18 of IEEE std
>>>> 1364-2005
>>>>> Verilog HDL.
>>>>> - Additional $identifier system tasks and functions defined
>>>> using the
>>>>> PLI, as described in Clause 12 and Clause 20 of IEEE std 
>> 1364-2005 
>>>>> Verilog HDL.
>>>>> - Additional $identifier system tasks and functions defined
>>>> in Clause
>>>>> 4 and Clause 9 of this standard.
>>>>> - Additional $identifier system tasks and functions defined
>>>> using the
>>>>> VPI as described in Clause 11 and Clause 12 of this standard.
>>>>> - Additional $identifier system tasks and functions defined by 
>>>>> software implementations.
>>>>>
>>>>> and
>>>>>
>>>>> The `identifier compiler directive construct can be defined
>>>> in three
>>>>> places
>>>>> - A standard set of `identifier compiler directives defined
>>>> in Clause
>>>>> 11 and Clause 19 of IEEE std 1364-2005 Verilog HDL.
>>>>> - Additional `identifier compiler directives defined in
>>>> Clause 10 of
>>>>> this standard.
>>>>> - Additional `identifier compiler directives defined by software 
>>>>> implementations.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus the references to Clauses 8, 10, 11, and 12 are
>>>> clearly wrong and
>>>>> it is ridiculous to leave them. The correct references do
>>>> appear and
>>>>> therefore these should be simply deleted. Even if you can
>>>> claim that
>>>>> maybe they were intended to refer to something else and 
>> you want to 
>>>>> find out what that was, it makes no sense to leave them in their 
>>>>> current form. Delete them now, and if you find in the future an 
>>>>> additional reference that should have appeared, add it
>>>> then. As they
>>>>> are now, they do not help anyone, and just confuse.
>>>>>  
>>>>>
>>>>>> * [Clause 2.8.3, pg 32]: The references to Clause 8, 10, 
>> and 12 of
>>>>>> 1364-2005 may be incorrect. This was discussed in the
>>>> committee and
>>>>>> its unclear at this point whether some of the clauses 
>> are internal 
>>>>>> references to Verilog-AMS document itself. Also chapter
>>>> numbers have
>>>>>> changed in p1364 and LRM2.3 and need to do detailed 
>> search for any 
>>>>>> reference to system task/function on these before removing these 
>>>>>> clauses.
>>>>>> ==> *Note:* This is not planned for this version and 
>> will be taken 
>>>>>> for next revision and also deemed as not very critical.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * [Clause 2.8.4, pg 32]: The reference to Clause 11 of
>>>> 1364 might be
>>>>>> incorrect. This was discussed in the committee and its 
>> unclear at 
>>>>>> this point whether some of the clauses are internal 
>> references to 
>>>>>> Verilog-AMS document itself. Also chapter numbers have changed in
>>>>>> p1364 and LRM2.3 and need to do detailed search for any
>>>> reference to
>>>>>> system task/function on these before removing these clauses.
>>>>>> ==> *Note:* This is not planned for this version and 
>> will be taken 
>>>>>> for next revision and also deemed as not very critical.
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Shalom
>>>>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Intel Israel (74) Limited
> 
> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
> 
> 

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.