RE: [sv-ec] rewording 1615

From: Jonathan Bromley <jonathan.bromley_at_.....>
Date: Tue Sep 11 2007 - 06:44:08 PDT
I voted against 1615 for, I think, similar reasons to Geoffrey.
I have tried to come up with my own wording to fix the 
problem, but I liked Geoffrey's better than my own attempts.

[Shalom]
> 2. I had also commented:
> Is there a difference between "originating in an initial 
> block" and "in an initial block"? If so, are readers
> going to understand the difference?

It seems to me that we urgently need a formal term to 
describe the notion of a thread (process) that's rooted 
in an initial, always or always_* procedure, by 
contrast with a thread that is rooted in some other
context such as a static variable's initializer, 
a continuous assignment, or a final block.  I guess 
such a term would need some kind of recursive definition.

> The 1615 proposal does not mention always procedures
> and the 1336 proposal does. Is that correct?

Presumably not.  I have always (sorry) been under the 
impression that "always" was semantically indistinguishable
from "initial forever"; is there some subtle difference 
that has eluded me?

The RTL-oriented always_* forms presumably should 
never allow fork...join_none.
-- 
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.

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Received on Tue Sep 11 06:45:51 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Sep 11 2007 - 06:45:58 PDT