RE: [sv-bc] Can a function contain a fork/join/any/none?

The proposal allows, among other things, nonblocking assignments and
procedural continuous assignments in functions, which were not allowed
till now.

1. The proposal also says, 
"A function that schedules an event to mature after that function
returns shall be illegal in any context in which a side effect is
disallowed or in any context other than procedural code originating in
an initial or always block."

I already mentioned that the term "mature" needs to be defined.
Do nonblocking assignments and procedural continuous assignments fall
into that category (maturing after return)?


2. 1364-2005 says in 10.2.3, regarding tasks:

"Because variables declared in automatic tasks are deallocated at the
end of the task invocation, they shall not be used in certain constructs
that might refer to them after that point:

- They shall not be assigned values using nonblocking assignments or
procedural continuous assignments.

- They shall not be referenced by procedural continuous assignments or
procedural force statements.

- They shall not be referenced in intra-assignment event controls of
nonblocking assignments.

- They shall not be traced with system tasks such as $monitor and
$dumpvars."

and 10.3 says,

"The results of the following activities that can be initiated by a task
are not specified if the task is disabled:
- Results of output and inout arguments
- Scheduled, but not executed, nonblocking assignments
- Procedural continuous assignments (assign and force statements)"

Should the proposal change any of this, at least regarding the
nonblocking and procedural continuous assignments?


3. If not, the proposal might need to include similar statements
regarding functions.

Thanks,
Shalom


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org]
On
> Behalf Of Brad Pierce
> Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2006 9:17 PM
> To: sv-bc@server.eda.org
> Subject: Re: [sv-bc] Can a function contain a fork/join/any/none?
> 
> Please review Dave's proposal for Mantis 1336.  A copy of his proposal
> is attached.
> 
> -- Brad