[sv-bc] RE: [sv-ac] Opinion on merging of P1364 and P1800

Hi, Faisal.

 

Without stating my own position (yet) on whether it should be done, I
think these are the main claims:

 

-         Going forward, Verilog should cease to exist as a separate
entity from SystemVerilog, since it is a subset of SystemVerilog.

-         The Verilog LRM contains statements, e.g., restrictions, which
are no longer true in SystemVerilog.

-         It is difficult and wasteful to maintain 2 LRMs.

-         SystemVerilog needs a single document which fully describes
it. Today you have 2 LRMs, whose combination describes SV. But then you
have to throw away from the Verilog LRM the statements which are no
longer true in SV.

-         Some people have the wrong impression that Verilog and SV are
2 entirely separate incompatible languages instead of SV being a
superset of Verilog.

 

Regards,

Shalom

 

________________________________

From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of
Faisal Haque (fhaque)
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 11:46 PM
To: Karen Pieper; sv-bc@eda.org; sv-ac@eda.org; sv-ec@eda.org;
sv-cc@eda.org
Subject: RE: [sv-ac] Opinion on merging of P1364 and P1800

 

Karen,

What is the rationale for merging the two LRMs?

Can someone explain.

-Faisal

 

	 

	
________________________________


	From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf
Of Karen Pieper
	Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 5:41 PM
	To: sv-bc@eda.org; sv-ac@eda.org; sv-ec@eda.org; sv-cc@eda.org
	Subject: [sv-ac] Opinion on merging of P1364 and P1800

	Hi, all, 

	In the P1800 meeting last week, the Working Group asked for each
of the SV-* committees to provide an opinion on whether or not to merge
the P1364 and the P1800 LRMs into one LRM.  They are interested in your
opinions on:

	1)  How much time will it take us to merge the relevant parts of
the LRM 
	2)  When you recommend merging the LRM (now, toward the end of
the current 2 year revision cycle, next LRM, never)... 
	3)  Any other questions or comments that the committees
recommend the study group consider in their decision to develop the next
PAR.

	Committee chairs, I would appreciate it if you would develop a
response reflective of your committee's opinion and forward it to me
after your next committee meeting, preferably no later than the 15th of
February.

	Thank you, 

	Karen Pieper