Re: [sv-bc] Please respond with your #1 SV-BC enhancement priority (due by end of January)

Hi All,
Regarding this discussion, I want to add few more points. I think the
committee gives more emphasis on new enhancements rather than
consolidation of current features which are already there. There are
many ambiguities in the LRM for many features. And if new enhancements
added, the number of ambiguities will be more. So I think it is best
time to resolve the ambiguities of the existing feature so that all tool
vendors work in similar way unless they have bugs. The ambiguities can
be collected from the various open Mantis items. I am not against the
new features, but we should not be that much proactive, if to resolve
one ambiguity a new feature is required, then it should be allowed.

Not only the ambiguities, I can see some features are too difficult to
implement that no tool vendors are yet too support though those are part
of SV 2005. Or maybe the designers do not have that much interest to use
them. One example is operator overloading. So we should look into those
areas too.

Regards
Surya

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re:[sv-bc] Please respond with your #1 SV-BC enhancement
priority (due by end of January)
From: John Michael Williams <john@svtii.com>
To: sv-bc@eda.org <sv-bc@eda.org>
Date: Thursday, January 28, 2010 4:48:27 AM
> Hi All.
>
> I would like to see the Std document written to define
> "usage levels" or some such idea.
>
> For example, "core" usage might be verilog; "extended functional"
> usage might be verilog, with C and C++ features. The different
> usage levels should be separated explicitly in the Std. Every level
> should be usable for simulation and include a synthesizable subset.
>
> Another way of defining usage level might include a level
> with only synthesizable constructs.
>
> Yet another might include verilog with interfaces or assertions, etc.
>
> The reason for this would be to permit tool vendors to
> "ease into" SystemVerilog by well-defined stages of progress.
> This would permit vendors to claim incomplete support for
> SystemVerilog in precise, well-understood terms.
>
> My limited experience with SystemVerilog is that it is frustratingly
> complicated and poorly supported, when comparing tool functionality
> with the full Std. It's a "heap big" Std!
>
> Perhaps the Std project could be explicitly segmented, the way VHDL
> has been?
>
> A big handicap is the fact that the same result can be obtained in
> so many ways: always and always_comb, for example. This is no
> problem when a specific designer is developing his or her own
> style, but it makes maintenance of the code difficult for
> others who have become accustomed to a different subset of the
> available SystemVerilog constructs.
>
> I think "enhancing" a language by just adding new ways to accomplish
> the same result (in simulation or synthesis) creates a less well
> designed and less usable language in the end.
>
> Reducing the complexity of SystemVerilog by any means would increase
> its acceptance by designers and project managers. Reorganizing the
> document would be one way of doing this.
>
> On 01/26/2010 01:00 PM, Brad Pierce wrote:
>> Background 1: http://www.eda-stds.org/sv-ieee1800/hm/0956.html
>> Background 2: http://bit.ly/7RDGox
>> Background 3: http://tinyurl.com/sv-bc-enhancement-requests
>>
>> Because of the reasons in the above links, Matt and I need your
>> feedback on what SV-BC subscribers consider to be their #1 SV-BC
>> enhancement priority for the next revision, and why. We'll roll it up
>> into a short presentation to the Working Group.
>>
>> The rules --
>>
>> 0) This a public process, so all replies go to the reflector, not
>> just to Matt or me.
>> 1) You must include the number of a Mantis item. If your #1 issue
>> is not yet in Mantis, add it first, or get someone to add it for you.
>> 2) You must include a reason why this enhancement is critical for
>> users.
>> 3) Replies due by end of January.
>> 4) If you believe no SV-BC enhancements should be made in the
>> next revision, that's an OK answer, but it needs a reason, too.
>>
>> Thanks for your help,
>>
>> -- Brad
>>
>>
>>
>

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