>From: "Brad Pierce" <Brad.Pierce@synopsys.com> >Regarding checkers and > > "Packages must not contain any processes." > >According to the "Scheduling semantics" clause, one example of a process >is a procedural assignment statement. > >A procedural assignment statement can be contained in a function. > >I conclude that a procedural assignment statement in a function in a >package is not contained in the package. I think the relevant thing is that the procedural assignment statement in a function does not create a process by the fact of its existence or elaboration in the design. Instead, a process created elsewhere calls the function, where the procedural assignment statement tells the process to create a subprocess. It is the execution of the function by a process that causes that process to create a subprocess. The statement is an instruction to create a process, not a process itself. >Hence a process in a checker in a package would not be contained in the >package. If having a checker in the package inherently created a process, then yes it would, from the above viewpoint. The difference is between creating a process statically by being elaborated, versus telling another process to create a subprocess when executed dynamically. Steven Sharp sharp@cadence.com -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Sat Apr 19 16:51:00 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Apr 19 2008 - 16:52:31 PDT