Subject: RE: Minutes of meeting (includes donation plus instructions for reflector access). (resend)
From: Simon Davidmann (simond@co-design.com)
Date: Fri Jul 05 2002 - 01:11:33 PDT
yes workbench and testbench are different things
a testbench is the code that surrounds a module under test
I have no idea what a workbench is - maybe it is a tool suite?
so I recall no discussion on workbenches, and so the minutes need changing
regarding the other errors in the minutes - if you commented that SUPERLOG
ESS had its syntax and semantics changed to become systemverilog - then I
would have corrected you on the spot - as that statement is factually wrong
- systemverilog syntax is SUPERLOG - as SUPERLOG is a superset of
systemverilog - that is what I would have said. - and so if you are going
to put your statement in - then you should put my statement in
Simon.
At 11:37 AM 7/4/2002, David W. Smith wrote:
>Hello Simon,
>Can you please cleanly state the correction you would like to make to the
>minutes. As you know the minutes are meant to reflect the discussion that
>occurred during the meeting and not continue the discussion after the
>meeting. The statement that I put into the minutes I believe correctly
>reflected the comment I made. As to its being correct or not that is a
>subject for another discussion.
>
>I believe you did make a comment after this which I may not have correctly
>captured. I do not believe it is all of what you sent in the email I am
>responding to. If you would like me to correct the minutes can you please
>provide me with the comment that is missing from the meeting or confirm
>that the email you sent is meant to be added to the minutes as the
>response you made to my comment in the meeting.
>
>I am not trying to avoid the discussion you are raising. We do not agree
>on it (and apparently one other person also does not agree) but this is
>not germane to correcting the minutes.
>
>I apologize for the use of the word workbench. Bad habit of using
>workbench and testbench for the same thing. Do you wish to see this
>correct in the minutes before we vote on them on Monday as well?
>
>Regards
>David Smith
>
>(Yes, this is an alternate email address that I use)
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Simon Davidmann [mailto:simond@co-design.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 3:19 AM
>To: David Smith; 'sv-ec@eda.org'
>Subject: Re: Minutes of meeting (includes donation plus instructions for
>refle ctor access). (resend)
>
>----------
>From: Simon Davidmann[SMTP:SIMOND@CO-DESIGN.COM]
>Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 3:18:58 AM
>To: David Smith; 'sv-ec@eda.org'
>Subject: Re: Minutes of meeting (includes donation plus instructions
>for refle ctor access). (resend)
>Auto forwarded by a Rule
>David
>
>A correction to the minutes.
>they state:
>David Smith observed that this was also true about the ESS donation based
>on SuperLog and that the required semantics and syntax was added to the
>language.
>
>this is technically wrong. the facts are:
>SUPERLOG was designed as an extension to Verilog syntax and semantics and
>is completely consistent with it.
>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.
>
>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 : Fri Jul 05 2002 - 01:26:40 PDT