(no subject)

Subject: (no subject)
From: owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org
Date: Thu Feb 20 2003 - 08:20:12 PST

• Next message: Warmke, Doug: "[sv-ec] Questions on synchronous drives"
• Previous message: David W. Smith: "RE: [sv-ec] Event Proposals"
• Next in thread: Arturo Salz: "[sv-ec] Re:"
• Reply: Arturo Salz: "[sv-ec] Re:"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Hi SV-EC,
Sender: owner-sv-ec@eda.org
Precedence: bulk

I've been reviewing draft 3 of the LRM and I have a couple questions
regarding the synchronous drive section (13.14).

1) What is the motivation for requiring contention resolution
   in case more than one assignment is made to a synchronous
   drive in the same time slot? (Sec. 13.14.2)

   At first glance, this appears to disallow a popular
   modeling style. It also disallows creation of waveforms.

   ex1.

    // use of "default" value assignment at top of process
    always @(some_event) begin
        cd.syncdrive = some_default_value;
        if (...) begin
            ...
            cd.syncdrive = some_other_value;
        end
    end

   ex2.

    // creation of a waveform on a synchronous drive
    initial begin
        cd.syncdrive = ##1 some_value;
        cd.syncdrive = ##2 some_other_value;
        etc.
    end

2) Why is concatenation expressly disallowed in the
   clockvar_expression of synchronous drive assignments?

Sorry if I've misunderstood anything in this area.
Knowing the motivations behind these language limitations
would help out.

Regards,
Doug Warmke

• Next message: Warmke, Doug: "[sv-ec] Questions on synchronous drives"
• Previous message: David W. Smith: "RE: [sv-ec] Event Proposals"
• Next in thread: Arturo Salz: "[sv-ec] Re:"
• Reply: Arturo Salz: "[sv-ec] Re:"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Feb 20 2003 - 08:20:51 PST