Thanks to Steven for clarifying things thus: > There are other ways of avoiding this kind of combinational glitches. > One synthesizable coding style combines the combinational logic with > the sequential logic in a sequential block. The combinational logic > is only evaluated on the clock, when the data is being latched. This > gives you a clocked check and avoids glitch problems. unique/priority are clearly designed for use in synthesis. The specialised assertions that they represent in simulation are only of genuine interest as a way to legitimize certain useful synthesis optimizations that would be unacceptable without the unique/priority qualifiers. For behavioral code that's not designed for synthesis, unique/priority impose a runtime overhead and obfuscate the assertion that's really being applied. So let's stop worrying about the general case, and start focusing on what makes sense for synthesis; if someone is then foolish enough to use unique/priority in other contexts, they deserve all they get (though, of course, the LRM must be clear about exactly _what_ they will get). Synthesis typically targets synchronous designs, but it is common for such designs to contain non-trivial blocks of purely combinational logic - which, of course, will in almost all cases ultimately feed registers. The standard RTL abstraction somewhat hides a rather important issue here. If you write a single clocked process to represent some combinational logic and its output registers, then as Steven says the code executes only on a clock, and - much more important - it executes on the same clock that will load the registers. The code that represents combinational logic executes just once, and sees the final settled values of its inputs as they were just before the moment of the clock. By contrast, if you split the logic into clocked registers and combinational next-state logic, the combinational code executes whenever the signals driving it change - typically, just after the clock that updates the registers, a whole clock cycle before the logic's outputs are needed. Of course, it may execute again later, before the clock that uses its results, if any of its inputs changes again. No amount of trickery to deal with "glitches" (whatever they are, in simulation of RTL code) will ever cope with this. It is a simple and obvious fact that the RTL code that models any purely combinational logic may execute at many different times up to and including the moment of the clock edge that registers its results. Why "many different times"? Consider inputs from external synchronous logic that has a clock-to- output delay model, or inputs from registers clocked by a different phase of the same clock. Of those various executions at various widely-spaced times, only the very last is significant from the point of view of unique/priority, because only the last execution up to the next clock will affect the values captured by registers. I believe it's pointless to try to find an auto-magic mechanism to solve this. Either a) leave things as they are, and make it clear to users that they should use unique/priority only within an always_ff or other clocked process; or b) provide a way to decorate the unique/priority qualifier with a clock, and then have it treated as a concurrent assertion triggered by that clock. I think that (b) would mean that the entire block of combinational code containing the unique/priority would need to make a special execution, triggered by the clock and using not the current values of its inputs but the Preponed-sampled values as for true concurrent assertions; and that the unique/priority should be ignored in all the "normal" executions. Please note that I don't regard that as a sane solution. -- Jonathan Bromley, Consultant DOULOS - Developing Design Know-how VHDL * Verilog * SystemC * e * Perl * Tcl/Tk * Project Services Doulos Ltd. Church Hatch, 22 Market Place, Ringwood, Hampshire, BH24 1AW, UK Tel: +44 (0)1425 471223 Email: jonathan.bromley@doulos.com Fax: +44 (0)1425 471573 Web: http://www.doulos.com The contents of this message may contain personal views which are not the views of Doulos Ltd., unless specifically stated. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Sat Oct 13 04:14:08 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Oct 13 2007 - 04:14:44 PDT