Verilog fork join and hierarchy

[RolfK]

Dear ALL,

I have the follwoing situation (pseude code)

for ( ... )
fork
....


case number
1:






join

 

[Robert Miles]

"RolfK" <Rolf.Kemper@eu.necel.com> wrote in message
news:e98b31f1-e4ad-41a4-a3a3-1afc2fe20cae@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

Dear ALL,

I have the follwoing situation (pseude code)

for ( ... )
fork
...


case number
1:






join

You'll have to post a more complete description of your problem
to get a useful answer.

 

[RolfK]

On 9 Dez., 20:50, "Robert Miles" <robertmi...@bellsouthNOSPAM.net>
wrote:

"RolfK" <Rolf.Kem...@eu.necel.com> wrote in message

news:e98b31f1-e4ad-41a4-a3a3-1afc2fe20cae@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...







Dear ALL,

I have the follwoing situation (pseude code)

for ( ... )
fork
...

case number
1:

join

You'll have to post a more complete description of your problem
to get a useful answer.- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

- Zitierten Text anzeigen -
Dear Robert,

Sorry the incomplete message, my system crashed during completing the
mail !
I can express it in a simple way at first:
################################################
fork
fork
# t1 ..
#t2 ...

join


fork
# t3 ..
#t4 ...

join
join
###########################################################
I would expect that t1,t2,t3,t4 is exceyed the same time.
Is my understanding correct ?

I'm going to write a test case.
The rel situation is more complex.
But I need to be sure about the basics first.

However, any hint is welcome !

Rolf

 

[Kevin Neilson]

RolfK wrote:

On 9 Dez., 20:50, "Robert Miles" <robertmi...@bellsouthNOSPAM.net
wrote:
"RolfK" <Rolf.Kem...@eu.necel.com> wrote in message

news:e98b31f1-e4ad-41a4-a3a3-1afc2fe20cae@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...







Dear ALL,
I have the follwoing situation (pseude code)
for ( ... )
fork
...
case number
1:
join
You'll have to post a more complete description of your problem
to get a useful answer.- Zitierten Text ausblenden -

- Zitierten Text anzeigen -
Dear Robert,

Sorry the incomplete message, my system crashed during completing the
mail !
I can express it in a simple way at first:
################################################
fork
fork
# t1 ..
#t2 ...

join


fork
# t3 ..
#t4 ...

join
join
###########################################################
I would expect that t1,t2,t3,t4 is exceyed the same time.
Is my understanding correct ?

I'm going to write a test case.
The rel situation is more complex.
But I need to be sure about the basics first.

However, any hint is welcome !

Rolf

I've never used nested fork-joins, but I think the way it is written all
four events will be scheduled for the same time (vorausgesetzt, dass
t1=t2=t3=t4). I try to avoid fork-join because it's somewhat confusing
and not synthesizable, although it is useful in testbenches at times.
-Kevin