RE: [sv-bc] Suppression of unique/priority glitches

> One could, however, construct an explicit internal "forever @(...)"
> loop *within*  a sequential process.  Consider the following:
>    initial begin
>       // do some preamble
>       forever @(a,b,c) begin ... end   // I want this to be
combinational
>    end
> If such code was written explicitly by the user, Erik's approach would
lose the "combinational glitch suppression" behavior 
> while my approach would not.


So, if I'm reading right, you're saying that someone might want this
glitch suppression not at the true process granularity, but at the level
of an internal subprocess.  You're right, this would be hard to do.  

Can you describe in more detail how this example would be handled with
your alternative method?  Isn't it inherently impossible for the
compiler to know which granularity you really want the glitch-freedom to
apply at, unless we provide a mechanism for an explicit user hint?


 

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.