RE: [sv-ec] Re: [sv-bc] ballot comment on static reference arguments

>In general, static tasks are a problem for garbage collection, even with
>out the ref argument. If I pass a class handle to an argument of a
>static task/function, that static argument retains the handle after the
>task/function returns.

Have you proposed a solution for that issue as well?


>If you just disallow hierarchical references to the static argument,
>that doesn't change the fact that the argument still contains the
>reference after the task exits (or you would have to add more language
>that says that it doesn't).

If you can't access the value, does it matter whether it is still there?
(If a tree falls in the forest...)  If you can access it via PLI or a
user interface, perhaps so.  However, as you say, such references could
be specified to be NULLed out on exit.


>So the simpler solution is to just forbid declaring a static task in
>this case, which is the direction we want users to take anyway.

I'm not sure that "we" includes everyone.  Static tasks offer some
advantages, such as efficiency.  Other new language features that are
effectively requiring automatics to be garbage-collected are increasing
that efficiency gap.


>BTW, you can't  declare a static argument to an automatic task.

Well, that avoids that issue anyway.


Steven Sharp
sharp@cadence.com