Subject: RE: [sv-ec] Motorola vote on sending the standard to the board
From: David W. Smith (david.smith@synopsys.com)
Date: Thu Apr 24 2003 - 14:05:14 PDT
Greetings,
Just to set the record straight. There was no better support fine grain
control of individual threads in 3.0. There were two proposals that would
have met these requirements (when with 3.0 syntax and one building from 3.1
fork...join syntax) that were made during 3.1. They were not processed for
the following reasons:
1. It was not a primary objective in 3.1 to have support this for this.
2. There is a way using global variables ot provide some support within 3.1
(awkward though it is).
3. There was insufficient time to handle this issue with the body of other
issues that we were obligated to handle.
4. There was no proposal provided that had been implemented in any form.
Having said this it clearly is an issue is of importance to many people. It
will definitely go on the list of Post-3.1 issues and I hope that we can
have a solution (as a committee) and resolve it quickly.
Regards
David
David W. Smith
Synopsys Scientist
Synopsys, Inc.
Synopsys Technology Park
2025 NW Cornelius Pass Road
Hillsboro, OR 97124
Voice: 503.547.6467
Main: 503.547.6000
FAX: 503.547.6906
Email: david.smith@synopsys.com
http://www.synopsys.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-ec@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org] On Behalf Of Kevin
Cameron x3251
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 1:31 PM
To: sv-ec@eda.org; Michael.Burns@motorola.com
Subject: Re: [sv-ec] Motorola vote on sending the standard to the board
> From: "Michael Burns" <Michael.Burns@motorola.com>
>
> Hi,
>
> Motorola votes "yes" on sending the latest System Verilog 3.1 to the
> Accellera board for approval, with the following comment:
>
> -- We're unhappy that the syntax for spawning child threads appears to
> be making it difficult to define a syntax extension that will allow
> control (i.e. killing) of individual threads, recognizing that the
> existing syntax was inherited from the earlier standard. The lack
> of an individual thread control mechanism may limit our adoption of
> SV3.1.
>
> Mike Burns
> Motorola
There was better syntax from SuperLog in the 3.0 version of SV that got
removed. That fact that it got removed tends to indicate to me that that LRM
was premature (I voted against it), and that this one is equally
premature.
Kev.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Apr 24 2003 - 14:30:38 PDT