RE: [sv-bc] In-line variable initialization

This issue should have really gone through the SV-BC originally since
this was an SV3.0 feature. The SV-EC was probably only thinking of
declarations inside classes that are by default, automatic. The text
could have easily been changed to require the static keyword in cases
inside a procedural block where the default lifetime was presently
static and an initialization was being used.

Dave


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org]
On
> Behalf Of Brad Pierce
> Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 10:40 PM
> To: sv-bc@server.eda.org
> Subject: Re: [sv-bc] In-line variable initialization
> 
> The requirement was removed by SV-EC
> 
>      http://www.eda.org/sv/Changes_draft1/LRM_Changes_5.html
> 
> 
> http://www.eda.org/sv-ec/Minutes/SV-EC-Minutes-2003-September-29.txt
> 
>      http://www.eda.org/sv-ec/Errata/ERR_10_to_19.html#ERR_17
> 
> -- Brad
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On Behalf Of
> Steven Sharp
> Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 5:41 PM
> To: sharp@cadence.com; sv-bc@eda.org; shalom.bresticker@intel.com
> Subject: RE: [sv-bc] In-line variable initialization
> 
> 
> >6.6. says, "Data declared in a static task, function, or block
default
> >to a static lifetime and a local scope."
> >
> >I don't see anywhere in the LRM a hint that there is a difference in
> >this between a declaration with and without an initializer.
> 
> Sigh.  Looks like you are right.  The requirement for an explicit
> "static"
> with a static variable initializer was removed in one of the SV3.1a
> changes.  I expect a lot of confused users, wondering why that
> assignment
> was not executed when the block was entered.
> 
> Steven Sharp
> sharp@cadence.com
>