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

From: Steven Sharp <sharp_at_.....>
Date: Mon Oct 15 2007 - 17:23:14 PDT
>From: "Seligman, Erik" <erik.seligman@intel.com>

>I'm not sure I see how this causes a major problem with the "flush
>deferred assertions at the top of the block" model we were discussing
>before.  Why can't we define the flushing to occur after the event
>control at the top of each procedural block? 

This assumes that there is an event control at the top of each procedural
block.  The language doesn't require that there be one.

Steven Sharp
sharp@cadence.com


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Received on Mon Oct 15 17:23:44 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Oct 15 2007 - 17:23:59 PDT