Subject: RE: [vhdl-200x] RE: Posix Threads
From: Peter Ashenden (peter@ashenden.com.au)
Date: Wed Jun 11 2003 - 11:02:43 PDT
I'd just like to reinforce the view that VHDL already has threads - they're
called processes. The issue is that they're statically created and there is
no form of abstraction (ie, no declaration and instantiation). An proposal
to add dynamic thread should build on the existing concurrency model in the
language so as to main conceptual consistency. Hence the approach we took
in SUAVE - see www.ashenden.com.au/suave.html.
Cheers,
PA
-- Dr. Peter J. Ashenden peter@ashenden.com.au Ashenden Designs Pty. Ltd. www.ashenden.com.au PO Box 640 Ph: +61 8 8339 7532 Stirling, SA 5152 Fax: +61 8 8339 2616 Australia Mobile: +61 414 70 9106> -----Original Message----- > From: owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org > [mailto:owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org] On Behalf Of vhdl-200x@grfx.com > Sent: Wednesday, 11 June 2003 11:51 > To: vhdl-200x@eda.org > Cc: sc@vcc.com > Subject: Re: [vhdl-200x] RE: Posix Threads > > > > From: Steve Casselman <sc@vcc.com> > > > > I like the synchronization aspects of Posix threads. "The > Mutexes are simple > > lock primitives that can be used to control access to a > shared resource and > > the condition variable which supplements mutexes by > allowing threads to > > block and await a signal from another thread" (ripped off > from somewhere on > > the net). Threads are used in Java and many other "latest greatest > > languages." We should make sure that we cover both Verilog > style Fork/Join > > and Posix threads. > > > > Steve > > I don't think you need both, the fork/join stuff is just a > subset of the > p-threads functionality. A lot of the syntax in SystemVerilog (3.1) is > inconsistent and hard to extend - I'd try to avoid copying the style. > > Kev. >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Jun 11 2003 - 11:02:21 PDT