RE: [sv-bc] @* vs. always_comb

From: Mark Hartoog <Mark.Hartoog_at_.....>
Date: Mon Dec 05 2005 - 09:00:59 PST
I really don't think that variables are the appropriate way of modeling
tri-state busses.
Wires are much better for this. 
 
You wouldn't use a unresolved wire to model a tri-state bus, why try to
use a variable?


________________________________

	From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On Behalf
Of Bresticker, Shalom
	Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 11:38 PM
	To: sv-bc@eda.org
	Subject: [sv-bc] @* vs. always_comb
	
	
	  

	I bet you though this issue was dead, didn't you?

	 

	I recently came across the claim that there is a standard
situation where neither always_comb nor always_latch is appropriate, but
@* does work. If this is really so, then we can't just deprecate @* and
say to use always_comb instead. We'll have to make sure that @* works
properly.

	 

	The situation is of modeling a three-state bus.

	In this case, we get statements like

	 

	always @* sig = cond1 ? in1 : 1'bz ;

	always @* sig = cond2 ? in2 : 1'bz ;

	etc.

	 

	The catch is that these statements will be found in different
modules and the three-state outputs are wired together at a higher level
in the hierarchy, thus violating the always_comb condition in 11.2 that
"the variables written on the left-hand side of assignments shall not be
written to by any other process."

	 

	Comments? I do not remember seeing this noted elsewhere. Maybe
it was and I just don't remember.

	 

	Thanks,

	Shalom

	 

	Shalom Bresticker

	Intel Jerusalem LAD DA

	+972 2 589-6852

	+972 54 721-1033

	I don't represent Intel 

	 



image001.gif
Received on Mon Dec 5 09:01:05 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Dec 05 2005 - 09:01:10 PST