Yes, typically a method call, such as to next() of H.5.1. -- Brad -----Original Message----- From: Bresticker, Shalom [mailto:shalom.bresticker@intel.com] Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 1:28 PM To: Gordon Vreugdenhil; Brad Pierce Cc: sv-bc Subject: RE: [sv-bc] void casting on void function call We also have for_step_assignment ::= operator_assignment | inc_or_dec_expression | function_subroutine_call But for_step_assignment is also a statement. So I guess only functions calls of void functions are allowed there? Shalom > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org > [mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Gordon Vreugdenhil > Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 10:44 PM > To: Brad Pierce > Cc: sv-bc > Subject: Re: [sv-bc] void casting on void function call > > Brad, this is I think one of those "semantic" prefixes in the grammar > (otherwise why not just use "subroutine_call"). > Similar to all the ..._identifier variations. That is why I responded > with the interpretation that I did. > > If you think that all variations of "subroutine_call" are legal, then > you believe that task_call is also Ok? If that is Ok, then let's just > change "function_subroutine_call" > to "subroutine_call" in this context and be done. I'm Ok with that. > > Gord > > > > Brad Pierce wrote: > >> "function_subroutine_call" isn't a system_tf_call > > > > According to A.8.2 -- > > > > function_subroutine_call --> subroutine_call --> system_tf_call > > > > -- Brad > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On Behalf Of > > Gordon Vreugdenhil > > Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 8:28 AM > > To: Surya Pratik Saha > > Cc: sv-bc@eda-stds.org > > Subject: Re: [sv-bc] void casting on void function call > > > > > > The question is whether the intent of "function_subroutine_call" > > is restricted to "function's that are expressions". There > is no real > > reason to make that restriction; C for example allows void casts of > > void functions as well. > > > > If you want to argue this too narrowly, you'll argue > yourself into a > > bigger problem -- grammatically "function_subroutine_call" > > is any call (including a task). The semantic intent is in the > > "function" prefix. But "function_subroutine_call" isn't a > > system_tf_call so one could argue that void'($bits(x)) > would be illegal. > > Clearly that isn't the intent once you consider all the > systf file I/O > > cases where one wants to through away return codes. > > > > I don't see any reason to not interpret this in the most permissive > > way possible. I'd even support allowing (at least) systf > task calls > > since that would be a great way for real user code to insulate > > themselves against possible variations in vendor implementations > > and/or LRM versions. A great example of that is with "$system" for > > which there is variation in implementation. Allowing a > systask call > > in a void cast would allow user code to have: > > void'($system("...")); > > as completely portable code even among different vendors. > > > > Gord > > > > Surya Pratik Saha wrote: > >> Hi, > >> As per LRM-BNF, void casted statment is: > >> > >> *Subroutine_call_statement ::= subroutine_call; > >> | void'(function_subroutine_call);* > >> > >> And for void function, LRM mentions following text (page > no. 156 of > >> IEEE 1800). > >> > >> *Function calls are expressions unless of type void, which are > > statements: > >> a = b + myfunc1(c, d); //call myfunc1 (defined above) as an > >> expression > > > >> myprint(a); //call myprint (defined below) as a statement function > >> void myprint (int a); ... > >> endfunction > >> > >> *Can **function_subroutine_call **contain void function > call? I don't > >> think so, as void function call is a statement. But some > simulators > >> don't think like that and passes the following case: > >> > >> module top; > >> initial begin > >> void'(f()); > >> end > >> function void f; > >> return ; > >> endfunction > >> endmodule > >> > >> Any expert comment? > >> > >> -- > >> Regards > >> Surya > >> > >> > >> -- > >> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by > >> *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is > believed to be > >> clean. > > > > -- > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Gordon Vreugdenhil 503-685-0808 > > Model Technology (Mentor Graphics) gordonv@model.com > > > > > > -- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Gordon Vreugdenhil 503-685-0808 > Model Technology (Mentor Graphics) gordonv@model.com > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by > MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. > -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Thu Aug 30 13:40:43 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Aug 30 2007 - 13:40:59 PDT