Re: errata/325: 12.4 confused on hierarchy for automatics

From: Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com
Date: Fri Apr 11 2003 - 04:50:04 PDT

  • Next message: Stephen Williams: "Re: errata/326: FW: [sv-ec] Handling of escaped identifiers."

    Precedence: bulk

    The following reply was made to PR errata/325; it has been noted by GNATS.

    From: Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com
    To: sharp@cadence.com
    Cc: etf-bugs@boyd.com
    Subject: Re: errata/325: 12.4 confused on hierarchy for automatics
    Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 14:40:11 +0300 (IDT)

     I looked for the history of these texts.
     
    > 12.4 has some confused statements about hierarchical names
    > and automatic tasks and functions. The second paragraph
    > states
    >
    > "Only non-recursively referenced automatic tasks and/or
    > functions create visible branches that can be referenced.
    > Recursively called tasks and functions, declared using the
    > automatic keyword and recursively called from within the
    > same task or function, do not create visible branches that
    > can be referenced."
    >
    > It is irrelevant whether a task or function is called
    > recursively (and this text only describes direct recursion
    > anyway, not indirect recursion or non-recursive reentrance).
    > If it is automatic, its variables cannot be accessed via
    > hierarchical names, period (see 10.2 and 10.3.1).
    >
    > I don't know what this text was trying to describe, but
    > it isn't doing it correctly.
     
     This was suggested by Cliff in an email to the BTF on April 23, 1998.
     I don't have web access right now, so I can't give the URL.
     I did not understand why he proposed this specific wording.
     
     
    > The end of the fourth paragraph has the text:
    >
    > "with the exception of items of automatic tasks and
    > automatic task item declarations. These declarations can
    > not be accessed by their hierarchical names."
    >
    > I don't know what the difference is supposed to be between
    > "items of automatic tasks" and "automatic task item
    > declarations". Maybe I am missing some distinction in the
    > terminology, but it looks redundant to me. Meanwhile it
    > doesn't mention automatic functions.
     
     This was proposed in an email from Adam Krolnik to the BTF on July 24, 1998.
     The distinction seems to be that at the time it was proposed to distinguish
     between automatic tasks and automatic variables. That is, there might be
     declarations of automatic variables in a non-automatic context. This was later
     dropped, but the wording was not changed here.
     
     In fact, there was an email from a fellow named Steven Sharp on Oct 21, 1999,
     which fixed the language in Section 10, but seems to have missed parallel
     language in Section 12.
     
     --
     Shalom Bresticker Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com
     Design & Reuse Methodology Tel: +972 9 9522268
     Motorola Semiconductor Israel, Ltd. Fax: +972 9 9522890
     POB 2208, Herzlia 46120, ISRAEL Cell: +972 50 441478
     
     
     

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Apr 11 2003 - 04:54:18 PDT and
    sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.