> I think the language will be most intuitive if ##n > is always associated with the default clocking. I completely agree, but if we do this it bars the way to a VERY useful piece of functionality. Dynamically instantiated verification objects can't have access to the default clocking, since the latter is associated with a static scope. Consequently, at present I can't use ## at all in a class-based piece of code. For the procedural ## delay I can easily get the functionality elsewise, but nonblocking intra-assignment ## is inaccessible [*] unless it inherits the target's clocking. I think that's a pity. [*] I just thought: does this work? cb.tgt <= repeat (N) @(cb) expr; If so, I have no problem with the loss of <=##. Further note: It's worth observing that EVERY clocking drive in effect does this... cb.tgt <= ##0 expr; where the ##0 is "line up with the current or next cycle of cb". Isn't that somewhat discontinuous with <=## being associated with the default clocking? -- Jonathan Bromley, Consultant DOULOS - Developing Design Know-how VHDL * Verilog * SystemC * e * Perl * Tcl/Tk * Project Services Doulos Ltd. Church Hatch, 22 Market Place, Ringwood, Hampshire, BH24 1AW, UK Tel: +44 (0)1425 471223 Email: jonathan.bromley@doulos.com Fax: +44 (0)1425 471573 Web: http://www.doulos.com The contents of this message may contain personal views which are not the views of Doulos Ltd., unless specifically stated. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Sat Feb 3 01:17:16 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Feb 03 2007 - 01:17:59 PST