Subject: [sv-cc] Re: Semantics of disable as applied to task/func arguments
From: Swapnajit Mittra (mittra@juno.com)
Date: Fri Oct 24 2003 - 16:38:31 PDT
More from Dave Rich...
-- Swapnajit Mittra Project VeriPage ::: http://www.angelfire.com/ca/verilog---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Steven,
I still don't think there is any issue here. Section 11 of 1364-2001 defines the behavior as undefined, but even if it did define a behavior, it wouldn't matter because the statement that called the function would also be disabled, so the return value is discarded anyway. Side effects are inherently undefined in this case.
Dave
Steven Sharp wrote:
>>A) you are not allowed to disable a function, only tasks and named blocks >> >> > >You cannot disable a function directly. You can still disable it by >disabling a named block or task from which it was called. In particular, >the function itself could disable the block from which it was called, >in which case the function is guaranteed to be active when the disable >happens. > >Steven Sharp >sharp@cadence.com
-- -- David.Rich@Synopsys.com Technical Marketing Consultant http://www.SystemVerilog.org tele: 650-584-4026 cell: 510-589-2625
________________________________________________________________ The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand! Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER! Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Oct 24 2003 - 16:40:25 PDT