Re: [sv-ec] package classes and anonymous programs

So, it sounds like there is not yet unanimity in the committee. Is there a 
Mantis for this issue? A working proposal?

Thanks,
Mike

Steven Sharp wrote:
>> From: "Arturo Salz" <Arturo.Salz@synopsys.com>
> 
>> At the recent face2face meeting we discussed and have a preliminary
>> agreement that the scheduling should be based on the process call graph
>> rather than where the class is defined or the object is instantiated.
> 
> I was not at the face2face, and I disagree rather strongly with this
> idea.  A subroutine is an encapsulation of behavior, which should be
> independent of where it is called from.
> 
> This idea of using the process call graph also naively assumes pure SV,
> and is not easily extensible to mixed-language situations.  I have
> recently heard of proposals (from SCEMI?) to allow calling exported
> DPI tasks from arbitrary places such as SystemC threads.  Practical
> cross-language calls rely on encapsulation of the behavior of the
> subroutine, so they have well-defined behavior no matter where they
> are called from.
> 
> 
>> This is different from the way the 1800-2005 LRM defines scheduling, but
>> it does resolve a number of ambiguities and outstanding issues.
> 
> And creates others.
> 
> 
>> As for you last question, if the class is instantiated in a module and
>> the method is called from a program, the method call would indeed work
>> just like calling module tasks or functions from the program without
>> regard on whether the class properties are module or program variables.
> 
> Agreed.  Except that I don't think you can really say that the class
> properties are program variables.  The handle used to access them may
> be a program variable, but that does not make the properties themselves
> program variables.
> 
> Steven Sharp
> sharp@cadence.com
>