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

From: Steven Sharp <sharp_at_.....>
Date: Tue Dec 13 2005 - 17:58:03 PST
>From: Gordon Vreugdenhil <gordonv@model.com>

>Bad example -- obviously that isn't an issue since if the logic
>is actually combinational, having additional simulation time
>evaluations won't change the results.
>
>It may indeed be that for combinational logic we may just have
>a superset of synthesized behavior accepted for simulation
>(i.e. that there are blocks that are simulatable using always_comb
>that aren't synthesizable) which is not really an issue.

Exactly.  If simulation behavior is defined properly, it can handle
any synthesizable block, including any that might theoretically become
synthesizable in the future (assuming reasonable definitions of valid
synthesis output).

Steven Sharp
sharp@cadence.com
Received on Tue Dec 13 17:58:09 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Dec 13 2005 - 17:58:42 PST