My intention was to start several parallel threads inside a for loop and pass loop variable as an input. I assumed the following code would do the job:
module top;
initial begin
for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++)
fork
some_task(i);
join_none
end
task some_task(int i);
$display("i = %d", i);
endtask
endmodule
Do you see the problem with this code?
If not, don't worry as I didn't at first either. Here is the output if you run it:
//Output:
//i = 3
//i = 3
//i = 3
It seems that the for loop executed completely and only then did the spawned processes start, but they were given the latest value of i.
After digging around on the Internet I discovered the answer. The SystemVerilog LRM mentions that "spawned processes do not start executing until the parent thread executes a blocking statement". This explains why the for loop finished executing and why by the time the processes were spawned i had already reached the value '3'.
The LRM also shows exactly how to fix our problem: "Automatic variables declared in the scope of the fork...join block shall be initialized to the initialization value whenever execution enters their scope, and before any processes are spawned". Applying this to our code yields:
module top;
initial begin
for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++) begin
automatic int j = i;
fork
begin
some_task(j);
//
end
join_none
end
end
task some_task(int i);
$display("i = %d", i);
endtask
endmodule
Now, for every loop iteration a new variable is allocated, which is then passed to the respective task. Running this example does indeed give the desired result:
//Output:
//i = 2
//i = 1
//i = 0
Nice description. Helpful.
ReplyDeleteHello,
ReplyDeleteI think output should be {0,1,2} . Please correct if i am wrong ??
Hi,
DeleteOutput is Tool specific,
VCS J-2014.12-SP1-1 is giving output {0, 1, 2},
Incisive 15.20 is giving output {2, 1, 0}.
You have tried this inside a module, if try this inside a class, then still the behaviour would the same. If so WHY?? ..
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteif i add a random delay before display statement its behaving as in the first case.. taking the last value? Any specific reason for that?
ReplyDelete