By the way, wearing my hat as a standards writer, if it is not written in the LRM, then it does not exist. And if a tool executes these constructs at time 0, then it is possibly noncompliant to the written word of the LRM. The solution of course is to change the LRM in this case, because the execution at time 0 is REQUIRED to order to give the correct results. Shalom > > I think everyone whom I have heard an opinion is in agreement that all > > combinational constructs (continuous assignments, combinational > > primitives, etc) must all have executed at least once before the end of > > time 0. > > So what is the problem to say explicitly that they execute like always_comb? > In concept, they are exactly the same. > It is a problem if they will execute before initializers and then > initalizers will not create events. > I agree that we can separate between 'always @' and the other combinational > constructs. -- Shalom.Bresticker @freescale.com Tel: +972 9 9522268 Freescale Semiconductor Israel, Ltd. Fax: +972 9 9522890 POB 2208, Herzlia 46120, ISRAEL Cell: +972 50 5441478 [ ]Freescale Internal Use Only [ ]Freescale Confidential ProprietaryReceived on Wed Apr 13 04:48:06 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Apr 13 2005 - 04:49:20 PDT