>From: "Warmke, Doug" <doug_warmke@mentor.com> >One way I've thought of to address the finite time glitch >scenarios you brought up in combinational logic is by >introducing the concept of a "pulse reject delay" into >the syntax for deferred unique/priority if/case. > >The idea would be to allow potential violations to live >not only across one or more scheduling regions of the current >time unit, but also across multiple future time units. Finally, >at the Observed (or possibly Postponed) region of the appropriate >future time unit, any surviving violations would be reported. But there is still no way to determine whether a new evaluation of the unique/priority construct is associated with a particular previous violation in the same constructs. In addition to the loop situation, there can be tasks/functions called from multiple places. This idea has been raised again and again, and the flaws have been pointed out repeatedly. 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 Sun Oct 14 09:37:59 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Oct 14 2007 - 09:38:10 PDT