Re: [sv-ec] ballot issue #107

From: Steven Sharp <sharp_at_.....>
Date: Fri Apr 24 2009 - 17:49:43 PDT
>> This asks the question whether a clocking event could be a ref 
>> argument of a covergroup.
>> We think yes, so I've made a proposal for a clarifying sentence in 
>> the discussion of clocking events.  It could be in the immediately 
>> preceding paragraph instead, but I think this is more natural.
>> http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/view.php?id=2711

I think there is a serious problem with a covergroup continuing to access
a ref argument after the covergroup new() has returned.  It is the same
problem as allowing any other subprocess to continue accessing a ref
argument after the subroutine returns: the lifetime of the variable that
was passed by reference may end before the subprocess does.  All such
references have been made illegal in the LRM because of this problem.

I don't think this should be allowed until we have defined something
like the "static ref" ref arguments that have been discussed, which
could only be passed static objects.

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 Fri Apr 24 17:50:24 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Apr 24 2009 - 17:51:06 PDT