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