Subject: RE: Minutes of meeting (includes donation plus instructions for reflector access). (resend)
From: David Smith (David.Smith@synopsys.com)
Date: Mon Jul 08 2002 - 08:44:07 PDT
Thank you, Simon. for clearly stating your desire about the usage of workbench. As I previously indicated I have used the term workbench and testbench to refer to the same thing but the term was not used during the meeting. It has been corrected in a the modified minutes I just sent out.
I did comment on, as recorded in the original, minutes on ESS with respect to System Verilog (I did take notes). I did not capture the complete response you made. I thank you for clearly stating your response and have incorporated in the modified minutes.
I do request that, in the future, all request for changes in the minutes clearly state the exact wording they want changed. This will make things easier for all of us to clearly understand what is required.
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: david.smith@synopsys.com <mailto:david.smith@synopsys.com>
<http://www.synopsys.com/> http://www.synopsys.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Simon Davidmann [mailto:simond@co-design.com]
Sent: Friday, July 05, 2002 1:12 AM
To: David W. Smith; David Smith; sv-ec@eda.org
Subject: RE: Minutes of meeting (includes donation plus instructions for reflector access). (resend)
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 <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 <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: david.smith@synopsys.com <mailto:david.smith@synopsys.com>
http://www.synopsys.com <http://www.synopsys.com/>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Jul 08 2002 - 08:48:44 PDT