Subject: Re: Minutes of meeting (includes donation plus instructions for refle ctor access). (resend)
From: Kevin Cameron x3251 (Kevin.Cameron@nsc.com)
Date: Tue Jul 02 2002 - 11:08:44 PDT
Simon,
> .... the facts are:
> SUPERLOG was designed as an extension to Verilog syntax and semantics and
> is completely consistent with it.
What about all that $root stuff - it isn't very compatible.
> When ESS and DAS were donated to Accellera they both were already competely
> compatible with Verilog 95, 2001 syntax. A fundamental strategy of the
> language design was to extend Verilog, not be an alternative to it.
> There were no modifications to ESS from donation to standardization as
> SystemVerilog - just the deferral of some items, and the addition of one.
> No changes to syntax or semantics.
>
> Vera was not designed as an extension to Verilog, but as an extra language,
> an HVL - that has constructs to connect one language to another.
> I believe we should be looking to focus on Vera as an HVL - in the same way
> that as Verilog95 was standardized it was not modified by OVI to break all
> the existing Verilog code that people had working with it. We don't want to
> start modifying Vera - it already works - we need to keep it consistent
> with the legacy code that is out there - otherwise we would be doing a
> disservice to its users and Accellera members.
What was donated appears to be "VeraLite" rather than Vera (though I don't
know what the difference is). The only major addition to SystemVerilog I
spotted would be associative arrays, and possibly "virtual ports" (but their
description is missing) and pass-by-reference, other stuff like "classes"
looks like a pretty thin layer over C++.
I don't see how incorporating it into SystemVerilog is any less backward
compatible than what we've done so far, and I don't think the language is
sufficiently different to merit keeping it seperate. SystemVerilog 3.1
should (IMO) obslete Vera by being a superset of the functionality.
Kev.
> also what is the 'workbench' you keep mentioning - I cannot recall it being
> mentioned in the meeting.
> Simon
>
>
>
> At 03:31 PM 7/1/2002, David Smith wrote:
> >Some people did not appear to get the minutes I sent last Friday. In
> >addition there are a lot of new members that have signed up.
> >
> >Here is a resend. I apologize for the duplication.
> >
> >I am still working on resending the donation. There are some procedural
> >issues I am getting resolved.
> >
> >David
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: owner-sv-ec@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org]On Behalf Of David Smith
> >Sent: Friday, June 28, 2002 4:52 PM
> >To: 'sv-ec@eda.org'
> >Subject: Minutes of meeting (includes donation plus instructions for
> >reflector access).
> >
> >The attached document contains the SV-EC minutes. Unfortunately the
> >instructions for joining the reflector were in error in the meeting the correct
> >instructions are in the minutes. I have added everyone at the meeting to
> >the reflector and those that indicated interest to the committee.
> >
> >I will try and resend the Testbench donation (as requested during the
> >meeting).
> >
> >Please review and send any corrections to the minutes before the next meeting.
> >
> >Regards
> >David
> >
> >David W. Smith
> >Synopsys Scientist
> >
> >Synopsys, Inc.
> >9205 SW Gemini Drive
> >Beaverton, OR 97008
> >
> >Voice: 503.520.2715
> >FAX: 503.643.3361
> >Email: <mailto:david.smith@synopsys.com>david.smith@synopsys.com
> >http://www.synopsys.com
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Jul 02 2002 - 11:15:34 PDT