Subject: [vhdl-200x] RE:
From: John Shields (jshields@synopsys.com)
Date: Mon Jun 09 2003 - 14:08:17 PDT
Wolfgang,
I agree with the general philosophy of understanding what SV has done
and to consider interoperability in judging the worthiness of new
features for VHDL. I also agree with the priority you cite. In this
particular area, noting what V95 is and
SV adds, it is important to abstract the requirements and bring
into VDHL a clean result that covers them.
I agree with Kevin and Peter. A declarative model for a dynamic process
and an instantiation construct is a better direction. Fork/join was
a limited idea and the extensions made to it in SV extended the functionality
in as clean a way as the existing language allowed. VHDL can do better.
By the way, it is unfair to characterize SV as merely catching up to VHDL.
SV brings some important new modelling and verification features to the
language. VHDL has an opportunity to achieve a similar functional result
with cleaner semantics. VHDL 200x can also fall victim to being overly
ambitious such that delivering results can not be afforded in a timely
manner.
Regards,
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org [mailto:owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org]On Behalf
Of Paul J. Menchini
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:11 AM
To: vhdl-200x@eda.org
Subject:
Received: from mail4.nec.com (dns4.nec.com [131.241.15.4])
by server.eda.org (8.12.0.Beta7/8.12.0.Beta7) with ESMTP id h59H6S1T006965
for <vhdl-200x@eda.org>; Mon, 9 Jun 2003 10:06:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from netkeeper2.sj.nec.com (netkeeper2.sj.nec.com [131.241.31.10])
by mail4.nec.com (/) with ESMTP id h59H6RmX028107;
Mon, 9 Jun 2003 10:06:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from missentry.el.nec.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by netkeeper2.sj.nec.com (/) with ESMTP id h59H6K4s014278;
Mon, 9 Jun 2003 10:06:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from toru (toru.el.nec.com [143.103.111.79])
by missentry.el.nec.com (8.11.1/8.11.1) with SMTP id h59H8kb10684;
Mon, 9 Jun 2003 10:08:46 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <200306091708.h59H8kb10684@missentry.el.nec.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 10:06:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: Wolfgang Roethig <wroethig@necelam.com>
Reply-To: Wolfgang Roethig <wroethig@necelam.com>
Subject: Re: [vhdl-200x] Re: Fork/Join
To: vhdl-200x@server.eda.org, vhdl-200x@grfx.com
X-Mailer: dtmail 1.3.0 @(#)CDE Version 1.3.5 SunOS 5.7 sun4u sparc
Content-Type: text
X-Sun-Text-Type: ascii
"Fork" and "join" is actually Verilog 95.
Statements enclosed by "fork" and "join" are
executed concurrently, whereas statements
enclosed by "begin" and "end" are executed
sequentially.
Since translators and simulators with dual
language support have been around for a while,
the VHDL equivalent of "fork" and "join" should
already exist. No need to extend VHDL for this
feature.
People have argued that VHDL has already
a richer description capability than Verilog,
and SystemVerilog basically catches up with VHDL.
Therefore my recommendation is to establish a
correspondence between VHDL and SystemVerilog first
before creating a list of required VHDL enhancements.
Wolfgang
> X-Authentication-Warning: server.eda.org: wroethig set sender to
owner-vhdl-200x@server.eda.org using -f
> Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 10:44:44 -0700 (PDT)
> From: vhdl-200x@grfx.com
> To: vhdl-200x@eda.org
> Subject: [vhdl-200x] Re: Fork/Join
> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=5.0 tests=NO_REAL_NAME version=2.52
> X-Spam-Level:
> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.52 (1.174.2.8-2003-03-24-exp)
> X-Loop: wroethig@eda.org
>
>
> I noticed that adding fork/join (a la SystemVerilog) was on
> someone's list of enhancements. I would highly recommend not
> adding fork/join and instead just add a means of creating
> single threads dynamically and add proper thread control
> in the style of the Posix threads library - the fork/join
> syntax doesn't lend itself to capturing thread identifiers
> and makes fine-grained control difficult.
>
> Kev.
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Jun 09 2003 - 14:10:19 PDT