RE: [sv-bc] Task enables in always_comb/latch/ff

Dave,

But as the LRM is written today in Draft 4, would you agree that the LRM
prohibits task enables in always_comb?

Also, was it the intent to allow blocking statements and fork-join in
always_ff?  Currently the LRM allows them.

-- Brad

-----Original Message-----
From: Rich, Dave [mailto:Dave_Rich@mentor.com] 
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 9:33 AM
To: Brad Pierce; sv-bc@eda.org
Subject: RE: [sv-bc] Task enables in always_comb/latch/ff

An explicit loophole was supposed to be put in always_comb blocks to
allow tasks so that you could hide the sensitivity of certain debugging
variables.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org]
On
> Behalf Of Brad Pierce
> Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 9:09 AM
> To: sv-bc@server.eda.org
> Subject: [sv-bc] Task enables in always_comb/latch/ff
> 
> In 9.2.2.2.2, the LRM says --
> 
>   "Statements in an always_comb shall not include those that block,
have
> blocking timing or event controls, or fork-join statements."
> 
> In http://www.eda-stds.org/svdb/view.php?id=225 , Dave writes --
> 
>   "A task enable is also a blocking statement because we do not know
if
> the task contains a blocking statement, or if it calls another task
that
> contains a blocking statement."
> 
> So task enables are not allowed in an always_comb?
> 
> Also, in 9.2.2.4, the LRM says --
> 
>   "The always_ff procedure imposes the restriction that it contains
one
> and only one event control and no blocking timing controls."
> 
> So in always_ff it is allowed to have fork-join statements and 
> statements that block, for example, task enables?
> 
> -- Brad
> 
> 
> --
> 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.