RE: [sv-bc] Is #4.2step legal?

From: Steven Sharp <sharp_at_.....>
Date: Thu May 18 2006 - 16:46:44 PDT

>If you used #4.2step as a delay control in a module whose time precision
>was higher than the global time precision, this would get rounded down

By higher, I meant "specified with a larger number", not "more precise".

Steven Sharp
sharp@cadence.com

Received on Thu May 18 16:46:34 2006

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Steven Sharp: "Re: [sv-bc] another signing question"
Previous message: Steven Sharp: "RE: [sv-bc] Is #4.2step legal?"
Maybe in reply to: Stuart Sutherland: "[sv-bc] Is #4.2step legal?"
Next in thread: Arturo Salz: "RE: [sv-bc] Is #4.2step legal?"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ By Date ] [ By Thread ] [ By Subject ] [ By Author ] [ By messages with attachments ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu May 18 2006 - 16:46:39 PDT