Oh that is an interesting spin. If we coupled that with default behavior for things like always_comb that do in fact have well defined combinational behavior, I think that we might end up in a good place. Gord. Steven Sharp wrote: > Thinking a little outside the box... > > Gord suggested thinking about the delayed reporting as a delayed > child subprocess, and the discarding of pending violations as > disabling those subprocesses, much like "disable fork". > > There has been disagreement about when to implicitly execute that > disabling operation. What if it were made an explicit operation, > like "disable fork" is? You could stick a "disable assert" into > the code where you wanted to discard any pending unreported violations. > > This seems like overkill for the typical usage of unique/priority, > but perhaps it is warranted for more general usage of assertions. > > Steven Sharp > sharp@cadence.com > > -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Tue Oct 16 14:19:46 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Oct 16 2007 - 14:19:58 PDT