RE: [sv-ec] Name resolution face-to-face meeting in San Jose

Gord,

I will be attending the face-to-face meeting.  

Stu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stuart Sutherland
Sutherland HDL, Inc.
stuart@sutherland-hdl.com
503-692-0898
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org 
> [mailto:owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Gordon Vreugdenhil
> Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 7:32 PM
> To: Dave Scott - MTI south; Doug Warmke; Mark Hartoog; agran; 
> Maidment, Matthew R; Neil.Korpusik@Sun.com; Arturo Salz; Dave 
> Rich; Francoise Martinolle; Mehdi.Mohtashemi@synopsys.com; 
> SV_EC List; SV_BC List; sv-ac@server.eda-stds.org
> Subject: [sv-ec] Name resolution face-to-face meeting in San Jose
> 
> 
> I am sending this directly to people who expressed interest in
> attending the planned face-to-face regarding name resolution issues.
> 
> I've cc'd BC, EC, and AC in case there are others who would
> like to attend on the given date.  If this poses a problem
> and you feel that it is imperative that you attend, please
> let me know immediately.  I, Mehdi, or Matt will send out email
> once the location is finalized.  Please do let one of us know if
> you plan to attend at all so that food/refreshment arrangements
> can be made.
> 
> The current plan is to meet in San Jose on Monday, 9/24.
> Either be Synopsys or Mentor will host; that should be known
> later this week.  I suggest that we plan to start at 9:30 or 10am
> and go through 4:00 pm.
> 
> My suggested agenda would be to proceed as follows:
>    1) talk through details of existing proposal frameworks and
>       see if we can get closer to consensus on direction
>    2) deal with other basic differences between what Mark and I
>       have suggested (not all of which are the key difference)
>          -- role of imports during bind and/or other late resolution
>          -- role of compilation units in the same
>          -- issues related to forward references to class members
>          -- resolution for out-of-range indices in generate loops and
>             arrayed instances
>    3) at least talk about other things that we haven't raised
>       yet in the discussion
>          -- modport name is one topic - how does that get pulled into
>             the overall description
>          -- having a more clear rule for how "forward" references to
>             functions are actually resolved.
>          -- rules regarding upwards referencing versus current
>             hierarchical upwards rules.  In particular should the
>             current rule requiring a "scope" be retained or relaxed
>             to permit resolution into variable names that admit ".".
>          -- should most/all of the resolution rules be pulled
>             together from the various places in the LRM
>          -- other topics may certainly be suggested here
>    4) on topics for which consensus can be raised, agreements on
>       who is going to make proposals and the scope of those proposals
> 
> I don't think that (3) is nearly exhaustive yet; I need to review
> some of my notes on other issues.  Certainly other input is welcome.
> 
> Gord.
> -- 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Gordon Vreugdenhil                                503-685-0808
> Model Technology (Mentor Graphics)                gordonv@model.com
> 
> 
> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
> 
> 
> 



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