RE: P1666 surprising result with immediate notification

John, All,


From: owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org [mailto:owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org] On Behalf Of john.aynsley@doulos.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 10:56 AM
To: David Black; Philipp A Hartmann; Bishnupriya Bhattacharya; P1666 Technical WG
Subject: RE: P1666 surprising result with immediate notification

All,

One plank of SystemC is the co-routine semantics. The more I think about it, the more I think that the PoC behavior is an anomaly. A running process should not notice an immediate notification to itself.
[JC] I agree in general with you except for the example of yield() implementation I gave you where it is not possible to do without.
I concur with Tor’s proposal of adding a yield() function then. If we had such function, I see little reason
to keep immediate self notification for the future.

I would vote for

* Keeping the PoC behavior as it is (for backward compatibility)
* Deprecating any immediate notification of an event to which the calling process is statically sensitive or already sensitive using next_trigger.

* An immediate notification of an event to which the calling process is not statically sensitive but is subsequently made sensitive using wait(ev) or next_trigger(ev) is permitted
[JC] Just to be sure, in that latter case would the calling process be awaken by that previous notification? (I guess no?)

Jerome

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