RE: 1364 vs. Verilog-XL

From: Simon Davidmann (simon@his-home.demon.co.uk)
Date: Mon Feb 23 2004 - 06:59:39 PST

  • Next message: Michael McNamara: "Agenda of IEEE 1364 Meeting of February 23, 2004"

    Vassilios,

    FYI: I was involved with Verilog in Gateway in 1988, and then with OVI in
    93/4 as part of Chronologic where I used to attend some meetings for John
    Sanguinetti - and so you are not the only one who "lived the history". - As
    I recall Dennis only came into OVI when he was Chair of VHDL International
    when they folded into OVI and became Accellera...

    Also - there is the OVI test suite that exists - that as Co-Design I got
    and used in the development of our Verilog compliant super-set simulator -
    this test suite was created during the 90's by Verilog users/vendors when
    they wanted to ask a question about the way OVISIM (aka verilog-xl) worked
    (but when they did not have access to a copy). - the last I heard it was
    managed by Systems Science who were acquired by Synopsys.

    A test suite is a good place to start to verify (demonstrate) compliance to
    a language (protocol, etc).

    Simon

    At 02:30 PM 2/23/2004, Vassilios.Gerousis@infineon.com wrote:
    >Hi Shalom, Dennis and Mac,
    > As far as I know, I am the only who "lived the history" of OVI prior
    >to Dennis and many people after him. OVISIM (or Verilog-XL) was put together
    >by Cadence generosity to help jumpstart the industry at that time. The
    >reason for that, the LRM did not exist, and we had, at that time, is
    >Verilog Modeling Guidelines. No one can really build a tool based on this
    >documentation. Although an OVI LRM was designed afterwards, it really did
    >not reflect properly simulation semantics (since synthesis semantics was not
    >an issue at that time). So the simulator was done for only one reason, lack
    >of good documentation (LRM).
    >To continue this model within IEEE, continues the impression that the LRM is
    >not a good reference.
    >
    > IEEE is supposed to build an independent LRM representing what a
    >simulator should do and it is not be designed to reflect a single product in
    >the market place. Verilog 1995 provided additional functionality that even
    >Verilog-XL at that time or other products did not support. Verilog 2001,
    >went even further beyond the scope of all simulators (or actual products)
    >that existed at that time, and no one product implemented the complete set
    >(one vendor claims to do so) of 2001. Should we ask this vendor to provide
    >their simulator as THE reference instead of the IEEE 2001? One also should
    >ask why VHDL LRM is better in this respect than IEEE Verilog 2001?
    >
    > Do you plan to add things into 2005, only if they are implemented in
    >Verilog-XL? How this team is going to integrate Accellera Work when it is
    >done? What reference simulator is planned for this topic for IEEE 2005?
    >
    >
    >Best Regards
    >
    >Vassilios
    >
    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: owner-1364@accellera.org [mailto:owner-1364@accellera.org] On Behalf
    >Of Michael McNamara
    >Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 10:33 AM
    >To: Brophy, Dennis
    >Cc: Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com; 1364@accellera.org; etf@boyd.com
    >Subject: RE: 1364 vs. Verilog-XL
    >
    >
    >
    >So, Dennis, what do you suggest?
    >
    >As you happen to be the chair of the entity whose predecessor donated this
    >technology to the IEEE, an entity which I believe retains title to the
    >reference implementation (which is OVIsim, not Verilog-XL, by the way), it
    >seems that the right thing, and as you point out, likely the now REQUIRED
    >thing is that Accellera makes OVIsim available to all on a free, non
    >discriminatory basis.
    >
    >I also thank you for following the steps of immediately pointing out
    >statements made by members of the committee that might be viewed as
    >discriminatory, or anti trust and the like.
    >
    >-mac
    >
    >
    >-- On Feb 23 2004 at 00:37, Brophy, Dennis sent a message:
    > > To: Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com, 1364@accellera.org, etf@boyd.com >
    >Subject: "RE: 1364 vs. Verilog-XL" > Shalom, >
    > > I commend you for all the work you have put into the IEEE groups
    > > to improve the quality of the Verilog specification. I certainly > want
    >to see this continue. >
    > > At the same time, all of us may wish to re-acquaint ourselves
    > > with anti-competitive issues which you outlined in your email and >
    >promote as being legitimate. You may wish to read "What You Need > to Know
    >About IEEE Standards and the Law" at the IEEE website: >
    >http://standards.ieee.org/resources/index.html#guides.
    > >
    > > In regards to the position paper, I have read it before. But it
    > > is no longer operative. In addition to the IEEE CS DASC approving > its
    >new rules last week in Paris, all groups operating under the > DASC must
    >now do the same. Since the DASC was instructed to start > immediate
    >operation under DASC rules according to the CS SAB relay > information, new
    >rules for all groups need to be formed. Since > this document is
    >anti-competitive, I see little chance of it > surviving as this happens. >
    >
    > > The position paper is anti-competitive, serves to restrain trade
    > > and confers on market leaders a permanent market position. Since > IEEE
    >standards-developing groups should assure that there are no > agreements or
    >understandings - express or implied, formal or > informal - that restrict a
    >participant's freedom to make > independent decisions in those matters that
    >may affect competition, > a dependence on an implementation that is private
    >is not allowed. > (In fact, dependence on "trade secrets," as this is, is
    >one of the > tell-tale sign of anit-competitive agreements.) >
    > > Since this group is littered with references to XL and I have no
    > > freedom to make independent decisions on any matters which relate > to
    >it, it affects my ability to compete. You have state so > much. In the
    >United States, this is call unfair restraint of trade. > It is illegal and
    >remedy can include recovery of lost trade. The > greater problem is the
    >Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of > Justice generally enforces
    >for the federal government, but private > lawsuits to halt antitrust
    >activities have become increasingly > popular, particularly since
    >attorney's fees are awarded to the > winning party. This is a legal
    >specialty which has kept some > industries relatively honest and made some
    >lawyers wealthy. >
    > > Your message suggests that this group is used to support an
    > > under-defined standard for the benefit of the two players. This is >
    >evidence of systemic and longstanding collusions to manipulate the > market
    >which attorneys love to see. >
    > > Also, discussions of market sizes, product offerings and details
    > > of products is out bounds for discussion within an IEEE standards >
    >group. Just because you know of no company that offers full > Verilog-2001
    >support does not mean this is so. >
    > > Again, my suggestion is to review the IEEE website since there
    > > are issues here which not only affect this group, but can call into >
    >question the IEEE's non-profit tax status. >
    > > Regards,
    > >
    > > Dennis
    > >
    > > -----Original Message-----
    > > From: owner-etf@boyd.com [mailto:owner-etf@boyd.com]On Behalf Of Shalom
    > > Bresticker > Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 2:52 AM > To: Brophy,
    >Dennis > Cc: etf@boyd.com > Subject: Re: 1364 vs. Verilog-XL >
    > >
    > > Dennis,
    > >
    > > I have attached an IEEE P1364 Position Paper from 12.17.1993. > It might
    >be useful to review it. >
    > > Like it or not, the Cadence and Synopsys simulators together have the
    >vast majority of the market, > according to the latest sales figures I have
    >seen, and 1364 usually has no interest in deliberately contradicting >
    >their behavior where all of them agree. >
    > > 1364 can sometimes be more or less restrictive than them,
    > > but it needs a very good reason to do the opposite from them. >
    > > There are mistakes in 1364. That is why the ETF exists.
    > > A classic mistake was in the definition of $readmem, for example. >
    > > Yes, it would be nice if all of us had access to XL. It certainly does
    >help me in my work that I have access > to XL, NCV, and VCS. And if I had
    >access to ModelSim, I would also check its behavior as well. > If you want
    >to donate me a copy, I'll be glad to report on its behavior as well. >
    > > By the way, I don't know of any simulator which is today totally
    >compliant to 1364-2001. > And when I find bugs in the simulator behaviors,
    >I report them to the vendors, > and I request them to change their behavior
    >to be compliant. >
    > > Every time I find a discrepancy, I consciously consider and try to decide
    >whether it is more logical for the tool to change or for the standard. >
    > > Shalom
    > >
    > >
    > > "Brophy, Dennis" wrote:
    > >
    > > > I guess it is nice that the opportunity exists for one entity to match
    >XL while the rest of the community must rely on the IEEE work as the
    >standard's official record of behavior. > > > > I understand that these
    >statements are true and an accurate reflection of many Verilog users, but
    >only serve to weaken and tarnish this group and the profession since it only
    >reads to me that the work of this technical group is to a great degree
    >irrelevant. > > > > Maybe all members of the team should be given copies
    >of XL to help in the cause of bringing the LRM into alignment with XL. > >
    > > > -Dennis >
    > > --
    > > Shalom Bresticker
    >Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com
    > > Design & Reuse Methodology Tel: +972 9
    >9522268
    > > Motorola Semiconductor Israel, Ltd. Fax: +972 9
    >9522890
    > > POB 2208, Herzlia 46120, ISRAEL Cell: +972 50
    >441478
    > >
    > > [x]Motorola General Business Information
    > > [ ]Motorola Internal Use Only
    > > [ ]Motorola Confidential Proprietary
    > >

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Feb 23 2004 - 06:44:57 PST and
    sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.