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

Steve,

You are not correct. I think we are still having e-mail latency
problems. My earlier reply said that by definition, final block
statements have the same restrictions as function statements.

Dave


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org]
On
> Behalf Of Steven Sharp
> Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 2:35 PM
> To: jonathan.bromley@doulos.com; sv-ec@server.eda-stds.org;
> Arturo.Salz@synopsys.com
> Subject: RE: [sv-ec] fork...join_none in functions, and final blocks
> 
> 
> >From: "Arturo Salz" <Arturo.Salz@synopsys.com>
> 
> >It is clear that the message "foo" will not be displayed, which is
not
> >fundamentally different from using a fork...join_none, as in:
> >
> >
> >
> >final begin
> >
> >   fork $display("foo"); join_none
> >
> >   $display("done");
> >
> >end
> >
> >Or, calling a function that contains the fork...join_none.
> 
> 
> Oddly enough, the proposal for 1615 would make it illegal for the
> final block to execute the fork..join_none by calling a function
> containing it, but legal to execute it directly.
> 
> 
> Steven Sharp
> sharp@cadence.com