Subject: RE: [vhdl-200x] RE: Posix Threads
From: vhdl-200x@grfx.com
Date: Wed Jun 11 2003 - 11:27:47 PDT
> From: "Peter Ashenden" <peter@ashenden.com.au>
>
> 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
I certainly agree with that, but I think the implementation issues associated
with dynamically creating drivers for signals may put some folks off. I
suggested elsewhere that we add explicit driver declaration so that multiple
processes can share one driver (similar to a reg in Verilog) - that would
allow a driver (which usually maps to a hardware object) to persist beyond
(short lived) dynamic processes that are just behavioral models.
Kev.
>
> --
> 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 - 11:29:37 PDT