RE: [sv-bc] release/deassign with variables driven by continuous assignments

Proposal in mantis 2097 moves the text in 6.5 into an updated 10.6.1 and
10.6.2.

Let the wordsmithing begin.

Dave


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org]
On
> Behalf Of Steven Sharp
> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 1:20 PM
> To: sharp@cadence.com; sv-bc@server.eda.org;
shalom.bresticker@intel.com
> Subject: RE: [sv-bc] release/deassign with variables driven by
continuous
> assignments
> 
> 
> >From: "Bresticker, Shalom" <shalom.bresticker@intel.com>
> 
> >But 6.5 says explicitly (and this is in 1800-2005 as well):
> >
> >"For the purposes of the preceding rule, a declared variable
> >initialization or a procedural continuous assignment is considered a
> >procedural assignment. A force statement is neither a continuous nor
a
> >procedural assignment. A release statement shall not change the
variable
> >until there is another procedural assignment or shall schedule a
> >reevaluation of the continuous assignment driving it. A single force
or
> >release statement shall not be applied to a whole or part of a
variable
> >that is being assigned by a mixture of continuous and procedural
> >assignments."
> 
> This may be an issue with the term "procedural continuous assignment"
> being used both as the general term for force and assign, and as the
> specific term for assign.  It gets confusing.  In this quote, it is
> being used as the more specific term.
> 
> But based on this quote, you are correct and the behavior of
> assign/deassign
> on a variable driven by a continuous assignment does not need to be
> specified because it is illegal.
> 
> Steven Sharp
> sharp@cadence.com
> 
> 
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.


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