[sv-cc] Re: [sv-sc] Results of Champions email vote ending Aug 13th

Hi Brad,

A checker instantiation is an instantiation, just like a module 
instantiation.  Since a fork..join does not have a static lifetime, it's 
difficult to define what an instantiation means in that context.

Concurrent assertions also used to be forbidden in a fork..join as well. 
  However, with the recent change to the definitions of procedural 
concurrent assertions, these assertions are now allowed within 
fork..join constructs.  They are treated as static assertions, but they 
only begin an evaluation attempt when the fork..join they are 
instantiated in is executed.

Checker instances contain assertions, but also contain procedures like 
initial procedures and always procedures.  While it would be possible to 
define the meaning of checker instances in a fork..join construct, time 
is running short.  It is possible that we could relax this restriction 
in a future version of the standard.

I hope this helps,

Tom

Brad Pierce wrote:
> That rephrasing would be better than the existing text, but why does
> there need to be this special restriction on checker instantiations?
> 
> -- Brad
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-sc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-sc@eda.org] On Behalf Of
> Thomas Thatcher
> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 1:22 PM
> To: Neil.Korpusik@sun.com
> Cc: sv-champions@eda.org; sv-sc@eda.org; SV-CC
> Subject: Re: [sv-sc] Results of Champions email vote ending Aug 13th
> 
> Hello Everyone,
> 
> I'm reviewing the comments from the Champions
> 
> 1.  From Brad:
>     The following formulation is strange
> 
>     "A checker may be instantiated wherever a concurrent assertion may
>     appear (see 16.15).
>     It shall be illegal to instantiate checkers in fork...join,
>     fork...join_any, or fork...join_none
>     blocks."
> 
> It appears that 2398 "Concurrent procedural assertions" now permits 
> concurrent assertions in fork-join blocks  That proposal also eliminated
> 
> restriction on placing them in class methods.
> 
> How about rephrasing this way.
> 
>    "A checker may be instantiated wherever a concurrent assertion may 
> appear (see 16.15) with the following exceptions:"
> 
> Tom
> 
> Neil Korpusik wrote:
>> The details are attached.
>>
>> Neil
>>
>>
> 

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.