>From: Gordon Vreugdenhil <gordonv@model.com> >Perhaps. We already have exceptions for systf calls in a constant >function context as one example. Some comments on that: 1. I opposed allowing systf calls in constant functions and ignoring them. That doesn't change the LRM, but does show that my viewpoint is self-consistent. 2. Since those contexts evaluate the function during elaboration rather than at run-time, that weakens the expectation that they should behave the same way. We don't even evaluate them in remotely the same way: we use an interpreter during elaboration, and compiled code at run-time. 3. Overriding of built-in systfs with user-defined ones can change the behavior of systf calls from run to run. We allow dynamically loading the user PLI routines. You could argue that ignoring the systf calls at elaboration time is equivalent to dynamically linking them to no-ops, instead of to the built-in definitions which could be meaningless at elaboration time. Since you may not be running in the same executable at elaboration and run-time, there is no reason to expect the binding of the systfs to be the same. If this is the only example, I think it is too weak of an analogy to provide much precedence. Steven Sharp sharp@cadence.comReceived on Tue Nov 21 15:26:57 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Nov 21 2006 - 15:27:06 PST