As Dave has learned, forking off background threads in class constructors is a very common usage in the world of transaction modeling. A transactor will typically create one or more threads for each instance created during the simulation. The primary motivation of model writers is to encapsulate all the inner workings inside the model and not expose the modeling details to users of the model. When 1364-2001 writes "A function shall execute in one simulation time unit", I understand that users take that quite literally as the meaning of "time consuming". And, after introducing fork/join_none, which is definitely not time consuming, I can understand why many people would conclude that fork/join_none must be allowed in functions. Frankly, I see nothing wrong with allowing fork/join_none in functions. A fork/join_none is semantically equivalent to triggering the execution of one or more threads from within the function, as in the following code: function void F(); function void F(); // some initialization // some initialization fork -> ev; T1(); endfunction T2(); join_none always @ev T1(); endfunction always @ev T2(); Both versions of the above function F() accomplish the same thing, except that the one on the right is more verbose and doesn't encapsulate the functionality as well as the one the left. If the threads triggered by the function are related to the function call --- for example, they may be associated with the particular transactor being created --- then the code on the right becomes a exceedingly more difficult to write: For example, the function may have to add the transactor handle to some dynamic data such as queue, which is then examined by the threads. It's also important to remember that the code on the right cannot be written in a package, thus, making life even more difficult for both model writers and users of the model. Forking threads from within a constructor is very common idiom in both Vera and C++ models. If we were to disallow this in P1800, I imagine a lot of IP writers will be upset. I suspect that these are the same people that have been questioning Dave on the availability of this feature. I'm not advocating that SystemVerilog allow all types of fork/join within functions, only fork/join_none, which is fundamentally not a time consuming construct. Sorry for blasting this to both sv-bc and sv-ec, but I believe it is important to let both committees know about this (sorry for the copies Cliff). Arturo -----Original Message----- From: owner-sv-ec@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org] On Behalf Of Rich, Dave Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 1:31 PM To: sv-ec@eda.org Subject: [sv-ec] RE: [sv-bc] Can a function contain a fork/join/any/none? I'm just going to copy the sv-ec from now on, since from the perspective of the sv-bc, this only deal with issues related to the testbench. The main place that I have seen this is in the new function for a constructor. This snippet of code below was submitted to the SPIRIT working group back in September. Since then I have seen it in a few other places, basically the same. class ahbram; ahb_slv_if.comp sigs; local ahbram_callbacks cbs[$]; local bit [1023:0] ram; extern function new(string instance, ahb_slv_if.comp sigs); extern function bit [1023:0] peek(bit [31:0] addr); extern function void poke(bit [ 31:0] addr, bit [1023:0] data); extern function void register_callbacks(ahbram_callbacks cb); extern local task main(); endclass: ahbram function ahbram::new(string instance, ahb_slv_if.comp sigs); this.sigs = sigs; fork this.main(); join_none endfunction: new I would grant that if a fork/jone_none were legal in a function, then I can see stretching the LRM to say that the task call inside the fork is executing outside the function, or even stretching the LRM to say that the "new" function is not really a function, its a constructor and doesn't have to follow the rules of Verilog function. Now we have the statement ahbram R1 = new(); creating a thread. But that statement could be in a package, or inside another function be called outside of a procedural context Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On Behalf Of Brad > Pierce > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 12:23 PM > To: sv-bc@eda.org > Cc: sv-ec@eda.org > Subject: Re: [sv-bc] Can a function contain a fork/join/any/none? > > Cliff, > > That's not at all what I asked. I don't see anything wrong with using > fork-join in functions. > > INSTEAD, I asked Dave, who started this thread, why so many people are > asking him the question in his subject line. My guess is that they are > indeed seeing examples of this style and then asking Dave, "is that > really legal?". > > Yes, it's really legal. > > How might they be seeing examples of this legal usage? Maybe the people > that are asking him are tool developers who are getting bug reports > about this legal usage, in which case the need for backward > compatibility would be even stronger. It would be interesting to know. > > -- Brad > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On Behalf Of > Clifford E. Cummings > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 12:01 PM > To: sv-bc@eda.org > Subject: [sv-bc] Can a function contain a fork/join/any/none? > > Hi, All - > > Just the sv-bc on this message (I'm tired of getting two of everyone > of these messages) > > Brad asked the question and I think Stu hinted around the question: > > What is the use-model for adding fork-join to a function? > > Are there any engineers doing this? (And has anybody slapped them for > doing it? :-) ) > > The engineers that ask this question, do they understand that no > delays are allowed in a function (not even #0 delays or nonblocking > assignments that cause events to be scheduled in later event regions > within the same timestep) and that fork-join are generally not > synthesizable and are really most useful when you add some form of > delay to the forked paths within a testbench? > > I can't say for sure, but I don't believe either Stu or I have ever > shown engineers a fork-join in a function in training and I don't > think we ever intend to teach this coding style. > > I understand that it might be important to add some form of > clarification to the LRM but whatever clarification we add should > come with the strong editorial comment that this is/was a bad idea. > > I will support whatever the group goes for on this and then I will > never teach an engineer to add fork-join to a function (unless > somebody can come up with some ultra-astonishing use-model that I > have not heretofore recognized). > > Regards - Cliff > > ---------------------------------------------------- > Cliff Cummings - Sunburst Design, Inc. > 14314 SW Allen Blvd., PMB 501, Beaverton, OR 97005 > Phone: 503-641-8446 / FAX: 503-641-8486 > cliffc@sunburst-design.com / www.sunburst-design.com > Expert Verilog, SystemVerilog, Synthesis and Verification Training >Received on Fri Feb 17 16:52:24 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Feb 17 2006 - 16:53:54 PST