RE: [sv-ec] fork...join_none in functions, and final blocks

Jonathan,

This is being addressed in SV-BC 1336 (BTW, it has an updated proposal).


By definition, final blocks only allow statements that are allowed in
functions. In the proposal, fork/join_none would only be allowed in a
process started by an initial/always block.

http://www.eda-stds.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0001336


Dave



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org]
On
> Behalf Of Jonathan Bromley
> Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 2:20 PM
> To: sv-ec@server.eda-stds.org
> Subject: [sv-ec] fork...join_none in functions, and final blocks
> 
> Apologies if this has been discussed already.
> 
> I know that there is ongoing discussion about
> whether fork...join_none should be legal in
> a function, since it clearly doesn't block
> but it does impact the scheduler by creating
> one or more new process.  If such process
> spawning in a function gets to be legitimized,
> it creates a difficulty with the definition
> of "final" blocks which at present are defined
> to contain code that executes in zero time
> and could appear in a function.  It is obviously
> inappropriate for "final" to spawn a thread that
> might try to consume time.
> 
> This is clearly a soluble problem - it's only
> a matter of definition - but I wondered if
> it had been considered...
> --
> Jonathan Bromley, Consultant
> 
> DOULOS - Developing Design Know-how
> VHDL * Verilog * SystemC * e * Perl * Tcl/Tk * Project Services
> 
> Doulos Ltd. Church Hatch, 22 Market Place, Ringwood, Hampshire, BH24
1AW,
> UK
> Tel: +44 (0)1425 471223                   Email:
> jonathan.bromley@doulos.com
> Fax: +44 (0)1425 471573                           Web:
> http://www.doulos.com
> 
> The contents of this message may contain personal views which
> are not the views of Doulos Ltd., unless specifically stated.