Subject: RE: [vhdl-200x] RE: Posix Threads
From: vhdl-200x@grfx.com
Date: Wed Jun 11 2003 - 12:11:13 PDT
> From: "Jay Lawrence" <lawrence@cadence.com>
>
> I believe vendors already do dynamic driver creation for the most part.
>
> Most 'C' APIs support this so that foreign models can be integrated at
> runtime.
>
> Jay
Do you have an example of how that is specified? - I would have thought
the drivers would be static, only the evaluation would be bound dynamically.
It's not that it's too hard to implement, it's just hard to optimize. Also if
you did it with something like Verilog-AMS you might run into real problems
with inserting A/D conversion.
I'd rather keep drivers as static-only unless there is a good hardware-modelling
reason for doing otherwise.
Kev.
>
> ===================================
> Jay Lawrence
> Senior Architect
> Functional Verification
> Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
> (978) 262-6294
> lawrence@cadence.com
> ===================================
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: vhdl-200x@grfx.com [mailto:vhdl-200x@grfx.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 2:28 PM
> > To: vhdl-200x@eda.org
> > Cc: sc@vcc.com; peter@ashenden.com.au
> > Subject: RE: [vhdl-200x] RE: Posix Threads
> >
> >
> >
> > > 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 - 12:13:21 PDT