RE: [sv-bc] always_comb and always_latch

Dave,

How about always_latch?
Section 9.3 is terser, yet seems to indicate that all restrictions
and other information in 9.2 should apply to always_latch. Is that so?

Thanks very much for the explanation.
Doug

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Rich [mailto:David.Rich@synopsys.COM]
> Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 2:08 PM
> To: Warmke, Doug
> Cc: sv-bc@eda.org
> Subject: Re: [sv-bc] always_comb and always_latch
>
> Doug,
>
> You suggestion #2 is already in place in section 9.2
>
> "Statements in an always_comb shall not include those that
> block, have
> blocking timing or event controls,
> or fork...join statements."
>
> A sensitivity list is just a single event control.
>
> Dave
>
>
> Warmke, Doug wrote:
>
> >Hello,
> >
> >LRM sections 9.2 and 9.3 describe always_comb and always_latch.
> >It is stated that both constructs automatically determine
> their sensitivity.
> >The examples show no sensitivity lists.
> >
> >However, the BNF groups all forms of always block together.
> >Thus, syntactically it is legal to create an always_comb or
> always_latch
> >process with a sensitivity list.
> >
> >Do we want that?
> >
> >I think we need to do one of three things:
> >
> >1. Modify the BNF to make it illegal to add a sensitivity list after
> > always_comb or always_latch.
> >2. Declare that such a sensitivity list is illegal in the normative
> >sections.
> >3. Explain what the semantics of such a list are, if it is
> legal. (ignored?)
> >
> >Thanks and regards,
> >Doug
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> --
> David.Rich@Synopsys.com
> Technical Marketing Consultant and/or
> Principal Product Engineer
> http://www.SystemVerilog.org
> tele: 650-584-4026
> cell: 510-589-2625
>
>
Received on Thu Aug 5 14:21:23 2004