RE: [sv-ec] wait on event

Is *truth* supposed to be defined as being non-zero or non-null?

Then

wait(ev) 

would implicitly be

wait (ev != null)

Or do handles always have to be compared explicitly with null in a
Boolean expression?

Dave


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org]
On
> Behalf Of Arturo Salz
> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 1:47 PM
> To: Steven Sharp; sv-ec@server.eda.org; soumya@cal.interrasystems.com
> Subject: RE: [sv-ec] wait on event
> 
> Steve,
> 
> Agreed. This does mean that explicitly writing the Boolean expression
> ought to be valid: wait( ev == null );
> 
> 	Arturo
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ec@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org] On Behalf Of
> Steven Sharp
> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 1:38 PM
> To: sv-ec@eda.org; soumya@cal.interrasystems.com
> Subject: Re: [sv-ec] wait on event
> 
> A wait statement waits for an expression to become "true".
> 
> In Verilog, a named event has no value, and cannot be used in an
> expression other than an event expression (in an event control).
> 
> In SystemVerilog, a named event can be assigned to a named
> event or compared to a named event or null.  I don't believe it
> can be used in any other new contexts.  I don't believe that it
> can be used in a condition and be implicitly treated as a
> comparison to null.
> 
> So no, it is not legal to use a named event in a wait.  Anyone
> trying to do so probably does not understand either named events
> or waits.
> 
> Steven Sharp
> sharp@cadence.com
> 
> 
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
> 
> 
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
> 


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.