RE: SC_FORK

I think it should be legal, and the wording should be clarified that the comma separated
items between SC_FORK and SC_JOIN must be expressions (eg. function calls) that return process handles.

Thanks
Stuart

From: owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org [mailto:owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org] On Behalf Of john.aynsley@doulos.com
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 2:02 AM
To: systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org
Subject: SC_FORK

LRM clause 5.5.7 SC_FORK and SC_JOIN

Although (back in year 2005) we agreed the wording describing SC_FORK and SC_JOIN , the sentence "There shall be no other characters other than white space separating SC_FORK, the function calls, the commas, and SC_JOIN." remains somewhat ambiguous. The agreed intent was that an implementation is required to support only naked calls to function sc_spawn. In particular, it is not crystal clear whether the following is legal:

sc_process_handle h1, h2;
SC_FORK
  h1 = sc_spawn(...),
  h2 = sc_spawn(...)
SC_JOIN

Is the expression h1 = sc_spawn(...) to be regarded as a function call in this context? The intent was that an implementation is not required to support this, but it works fine in the ref sim.

Comments?

Thanks,

John A

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner<http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
believed to be clean.
-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.