Shalom, Very good point. So i guess the local references should be 7,9,10 and 11 as I merged chapters 5/6 in LRM v2.3 (and possibly the author of chapter 2 worked before this merger was done) as we could hardly distinguish the difference between the two. I guess the reference to 1364-2005 in that bullet point was added incorrectly which led to all the confusion. Regards, Bresticker, Shalom wrote: > Note that 1364-2005 itself has a parallel subclause saying where the > system tasks and functions are. Section 3.7.3 says, > > "The $identifier system task/function can be defined in three places: > - A standard set of $identifier system tasks and functions, as defined > in Clause 17 and Clause 18. > - Additional $identifier system tasks and functions defined using the > PLI, as described in Clause 20. > - Additional $identifier system tasks and functions defined by software > implementations." > > I suspect the incorrect references point to Verilog-AMS 2.2. > There Clause 8 is Mixed-signal and 8.11 is Supplementary driver access > functions. > Clause 10 there is System tasks and functions. > Clause 12 is Using VPI routines. > Clause 11 is Compiler directives. > That seems to correspond almost perfectly to the erroneous references. > > Regards, > Shalom > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Geoffrey.Coram [mailto:geoffrey.coram@analog.com] >> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 7:30 PM >> To: Bresticker, Shalom >> Cc: Sri Chandra; Verilog-AMS LRM Committee; Wilmore, Jim >> Subject: 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. >>> >>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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. > > -- Srikanth Chandrasekaran Design Technology (Tools Development) Freescale Semiconductor Inc. T:+91-120-439 5000 p:x3824 f: x5199 -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Tue Jul 15 01:22:40 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jul 15 2008 - 01:23:45 PDT