Seligman, Erik wrote: > These are interesting questions; I'm adding the sv-ac to this discussion > too. > > Steven-- The way I was thinking about it, a 'process' begins at the > start of an always_comb block or similar construct, and ends when that > block is exited. Any form of suspension, forking, or delay would leave > it as the same process; reaching the end of the defining block is the > way to end the process, at least for the purpose of the glitch-free > assertions we're defining. > > But I don't have a deep knowledge of process evaluation/execution. Is > there a fundamental hole in this definition? Can we state it more > formally in a way that would alleviate your concern? "Initiation" is only reasonable for a combinational process. As soon as you consider a general sequential process, you have to be careful about suspension due to explicit delay control. See the example that I posted with the delay between two unique case constructs. I think the "block" model and similar have problems when you get into Shalom's questions about loops. Gord. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Vreugdenhil 503-685-0808 Model Technology (Mentor Graphics) gordonv@model.com -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Fri Oct 12 07:01:02 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Oct 12 2007 - 07:02:43 PDT