RE: [sv-bc] Re: [sv-ac] checker: Clarification on functions & side effects

AFAIK, from the low-level technical committee stand point, the process
of producing an "Interpretation" document is the same as producing the
standard itself. I think that is a side issue to Eric's original
concerns.

First, all issues that demand a change to the LRM should be entered into
Mantis. Mantis by no means the best tracking system out there, but it's
what we've got. We either need to make it work for us, or find something
else. Create a separate database of issues will only make maters worse
because you will now have two places to search. 

There are things in Mantis that we can use to make it easier for
outsiders to use. There is now an anonymous login that anyone can use
that requires no username/password. There are Tags that can be used aid
searches. And now that the LRM has stabilized, we can add fields to mark
relevant sections of the LRM.

Second, Mantis has integration with wiki's that can link pages with
Mantis issues. For security, the eda.org wiki still requires a login,
but that could be made more open than the Mantis system so that the wiki
becomes a whiteboard for issues.

Finally, there is no reason we have to wait for the LRM to be published
in March to begin addressing issues. There are over 900 open issues
right now and I would like to propose to the DASC that they authorize a
Working Group to create an Erratum LRM.

Dave


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org]
On
> Behalf Of Steven J. Dovich
> Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 8:12 AM
> To: Jonathan Bromley
> Cc: sv-ac@server.eda.org; sv-bc@server.eda.org
> Subject: Re: [sv-bc] Re: [sv-ac] checker: Clarification on functions &
side
> effects
> 
> IEEE Interpretations are the mechanism for working groups to issue
> formal responses to questions about their published work. Naturally,
the
> range of responses is constrained to not invalidate or alter the
> published document.  A frequent response refers the issue to the
working
> group for consideration in the next version of the standard. Another
> frequent response connects the dots that may have been missed, thus
> leading to flawed conclusions about the requirements of the standard.
> 
> The Verilog/SystemVerilog working group has long managed errata
outside
> of the IEEE Interpretations process, and as such no official guidance
> has been provided to users of the standard.  I don't know whether IEEE
> policy on errata encourages or discourages this proposed approach, and
a
> question directed up through DASC might be useful to establish where
the
> boundaries are.
> 
> /sjd
> 
> 
> jonathan.bromley@doulos.com wrote:
> >> Is there any objection to us creating a public SV errata/commentary
> >> wiki, where we could organize these things in a quickly acceesible
> >> way?  Such a page would be unofficial, but might be quite useful.
> >>
> >
> > Some while after the VHDL standard 1076-1987 was first published,
> > the relevant committee published an "Interpretations" document
> > for just this kind of reason.  I know that it was published as
> > an IEEE doc, but presumably it did not have the status of a
> > formal standard.  So, at the very least, there is a precedent.
> >
> 
> --
> 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.