Date: Mon Jul 02 2007 - 08:45:22 PDT
Yes, wire and tri are "identical in their syntax and functions", but according to 6.10.1, "two names are provided so that the name of a net can indicate the purpose of the net in that model." It goes on to say, "A wire net can be used for nets that are driven by a single gate or continuous assignment. The tri net type can be used where multiple drivers drive a net." What's so wrong about assuming that the designer has accurately indicated the purpose of the net with the choice of wire vs. tri, hence that tri [15:0] busa; is indeed "a three-state 16-bit bus"? -- Brad ________________________________ From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On Behalf Of Bresticker, Shalom Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 2:42 AM To: sv-bc@eda.org Subject: [sv-bc] minor wire issues Hi, A few minor issues related to tri's and uwire's. 1. 6.8.1 has the example: tri [15:0] busa; // a three-state 16-bit bus This is not accurate. tri is exactly the same as wire. It may or may not be three-state. 2. 6.10.1 describes tri and wire. 6.10.2 describes wired-and and wired-or nets. 6.10.3 describes triregs. 6.10.4 describes tri0 and tri1. 6.10.5 describes uwires. I think uwires are closer to plain wires than any of those other variants, so I think the uwire sub-clause should immediately follow 6.10.1 instead of being several sub-clauses distant. 3. 10.3.4 Continuous assignment strengths The driving strength of a continuous assignment can be specified by the user. This applies only to assignments to scalar nets of the following types: wire tri trireg wand triand tri0 wor trior tri1 This omits uwires. In fact, it would be easier to write This applies only to assignments to scalar nets, except of type supply0 and supply1. 4. Annex L: vpiTri has the comment /* three-state net */. This is not accurate. tri is exactly the same as wire. It may or may not be three-state. Shalom Bresticker Intel Jerusalem LAD DA +972 2 589-6852 +972 54 721-1033 -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner <http://www.mailscanner.info/> , and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
