RE: [sv-ac] RE: [sv-ec] 1900 mantis (checkers): checker in package ?

From: Steven Sharp <sharp_at_.....>
Date: Sat Apr 19 2008 - 16:50:28 PDT
>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