Subject: [sv-ec] FW: [sv-cc] Semantics of disable as applied to task/func argument s
From: Warmke, Doug (doug_warmke@mentorg.com)
Date: Wed Oct 22 2003 - 11:14:22 PDT
David,
Here is something from SV-CC that you guys might want to consider
in the SV-EC team. Sorry if you already have an item open on
these topics.
Regards,
Doug
-----Original Message-----
From: Joao Geada [mailto:Joao.Geada@synopsys.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 11:09 AM
To: Sv-Cc
Subject: [sv-cc] Semantics of disable as applied to task/func arguments
Hi all,
Just to document the issue that came up during today's sv-cc meeting:
what is the behavior of task/function output/inout/ref arguments when that
invocation of the task or function is disabled ?
In IEEE 1364-2001, Section 11 (page 162) it states that:
"The results of the following activities that may be initiated by a task
are not specified if the task or function is disabled:
Results of output and inout arguments"
I believe a (minor) errata is required to carry this rule forward
into SV 3.1, stating that the general principle applies.
ie something like:
The results of the following activities that may be initiated by a task +or
function+
are not specified if the task or function is disabled:
Results of output, inout +and reference+ arguments
(the + signs indicate additions to the text in the 1364-2001)
Additionally, it would also be desirable to state what happens to items
allocated via "new" in task/function invocations that are disabled.
Joao
============================================================================
==
Joao Geada, PhD Principal Engineer Verif Tech
Group
Synopsys, Inc TEL: (508)
263-8083
377 Simarano Drive, Suite 300, FAX: (508)
263-8069
Marlboro, MA 01752, USA
============================================================================
==
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Oct 22 2003 - 11:21:27 PDT