Subject: Re: [sv-ec] Re: Draft 3 - 9.9 wait/disable fork
From: Arturo Salz (Arturo.Salz@synopsys.com)
Date: Sat Mar 01 2003 - 10:30:48 PST
Kevin,
Waiting for a particular process is not part of the spec. The current constructs
allow you to wait or terminate all processes created by the calling process.
Verilog-2001 already allows disabling a process using "disable <label>", but
it can't differentiate between the various processes created at that label. To
accomplish that level of fine-grain process control we'll have to introduce new
functionality. That's the reason we retained the "process" keyword so that in
we can use it to implement fine-grain process control.
$suspend_thread is functionally identical to #0. The only reason its existence
is documentation. I think "yield" might be a better name only when you
consider that processes execute in a single processor, hence the process yields
the CPU.
Arturo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Cameron" <Kevin.Cameron@nsc.com>
To: <sv-ec@eda.org>
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 5:06 PM
Subject: [sv-ec] Re: Draft 3 - 9.9 wait/disable fork
Shouldn't the syntax for wait/disable on a fork be:
wait|disable <fork label>
- with the current syntax you can't differentiate between multiple fork
statements. I think it's desirable to be able to do this:
fork : p1 proc_1() ; join_none;
fork : p2 proc_2() ; join_none;
wait p1;
disable p2;
Also, the description of $suspend_thread does not say that it is identical to a #0
(would you need it if it was?), but it doesn't say when exactly in the simulation
cycle the thread starts again - same delta, next delta or next time slot?
$yield might be a better name since "suspend" usually implies a thread sleeps
until some external event wakes it.
Regards,
Kev.
-- National Semiconductor, Tel: (408) 721 3251 2900 Semiconductor Drive, Mail Stop D3-500, Santa Clara, CA 95052-8090
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sat Mar 01 2003 - 10:28:43 PST