RE: [sv-bc] function task calling

That's easy to deal with. They are still system functions. It's just
that they can be implicitly cast to a void return type.

Dave


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bresticker, Shalom [mailto:shalom.bresticker@intel.com]
> Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 8:45 AM
> To: Rich, Dave; Steven Sharp; sv-bc@server.eda-stds.org;
> Brad.Pierce@synopsys.com
> Subject: RE: [sv-bc] function task calling
> 
> Although today there may be no system tasks which delay, there could
be
> in the future.
> 
> Note that we already have one system task, $cast, which when called as
a
> function, is not of type void. We also decided that $system would work
> that way. And in 1364-2001, $sformat was described that way also.
> 
> Shalom
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org
> > [mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Rich, Dave
> > Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 6:52 AM
> > To: Steven Sharp; sv-bc@server.eda-stds.org;
Brad.Pierce@synopsys.com
> > Subject: RE: [sv-bc] function task calling
> >
> > I think renaming system tasks to system functions is
> > something that will have to eventually happen as a result of
> > the merge. Any method that guarantees it will not consume
> > time should be defined as a function, void or otherwise. In
> > the end it will be a lot clearer that way.
> >
> > But there are 368 occurrences of 'system task' in the LRM. I
> > think it should wait for the next draft, unless someone has
> > the energy to take this on in the next two months.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org
[mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org]
> > On
> > > Behalf Of Steven Sharp
> > > Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2007 8:25 PM
> > > To: sv-bc@server.eda-stds.org; Brad.Pierce@synopsys.com
> > > Subject: RE: [sv-bc] function task calling
> > >
> > >
> > > >Could we add text saying that a system task is a void system
> > function?
> > >
> > > It doesn't sound like you are suggesting that we replace
> > "system task"
> > > with "void system function" everywhere, which would be
> > daunting.  It
> > > sounds like you are suggesting a single statement saying
> > that system
> > > tasks can be regarded as void system functions.
> > >
> > > If this only affects the legality of calling them from
> > functions, then
> > > you would presumably want the statement to appear in the
> > section that
> > > says what is legal in a function.  Something like "System tasks
are
> > > treated as if they are void system functions for this purpose."
> > >
> > > That seems to me like a roundabout way of saying what you
> > mean, which
> > > is "System tasks can be called from functions."
> > >
> > > It sounds like you want the text to provide the rationale
> > for the rule
> > > in addition to the rule itself.  I don't have a problem
> > with that, as
> > > it makes the rules easier to understand and extrapolate from.  But
I
> > am
> > > concerned that saying "system tasks are actually void system
> > functions"
> > > will lead readers to believe that this means something more than
> > > "system tasks can be called from functions".  This could
> > confuse them.
> > >
> > > Steven Sharp
> > > sharp@cadence.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.
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Intel Israel (74) Limited
> 
> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.