RE: [sv-ec] RE: [sv-bc] Can a function contain a fork/join/any/none?

Doug,

But, Dave's question is still valid. If a package is (by some
unspecified tool dependent mechanism) included in a design but no
element from the package is imported either via an import statement or
using the package-qualified name then should the simulator even allocate
and execute the declaration initializers (which may contain functions
with additional side effects)?  And, if no data from a package is ever
used and no function from the package is ever called, should the
simulator even call the corresponding final block (assuming we allow
that).

So is this behavior just an optimization, or something that the LRM
should address.

	Arturo

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-ec@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org] On Behalf Of
Warmke, Doug
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 4:30 PM
To: Rich, Dave; sv-bc@eda.org; sv-ec@eda.org
Subject: RE: [sv-ec] RE: [sv-bc] Can a function contain a
fork/join/any/none?

Dave,

I would like the answer to your question to be "yes".
And I think this should be specified in the LRM.

That way folks could count on using VDA's in packages
as a way of getting singleton initialization code
to run.

SV currently lacks a way to run singleton destruction
code based in packages.

See http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0000878,
which expresses the possibility of allowing final blocks to
be declared in packages for this purpose.

I also thought of Francoise's refinement points, but she
beat me to the punch on those.

Regards,
Doug

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On 
> Behalf Of Rich, Dave
> Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 3:14 PM
> To: Steven Sharp; sv-ec@eda.org; sv-bc@eda.org; 
> Arturo.Salz@synopsys.com
> Subject: RE: [sv-ec] RE: [sv-bc] Can a function contain a 
> fork/join/any/none?
> 
> This raises the question "Does a package exist if no one imports it?"
> Having static space allocated by an unused package is not usually an
> issue, but if it creates threads, I can see that as being a problem. I
> vaguely remember this as the reason that modules and continuous
> assignments were not allowed in packages. 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On Behalf Of
> Steven
> > Sharp
> > Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 12:24 PM
> > To: sharp@cadence.com; sv-ec@eda.org; sv-bc@eda.org;
> > Arturo.Salz@synopsys.com
> > Subject: RE: [sv-ec] RE: [sv-bc] Can a function contain a
> > fork/join/any/none?
> > 
> > 
> > >[Arturo]
> > >My point is that all of these issues exist in other 
> contexts and the
> > >tools must be able to deal with them. By extension, these do not
> > >represent any fundamental or implementation problem.
> > 
> > But Dave has pointed out that this allows some things that are not
> > possible with functions triggering other processes, or with tasks.
> > In particular, it allows creating a thread whose parent is a
> > variable initialization.  This in turn means it has allowed root
> > threads to be created in a package, which could not happen before.
> > 
> > I don't know what specific problems Dave is concerned this 
> will cause.
> > 
> > Steven Sharp
> > sharp@cadence.com
> 
> 
>