Jonathan Bromley wrote: > It could easily cause another iteration around the outer > loop in the same timeslot, yes. However, I don't really > have a problem with removing the "event equivalence" claim; > indeed I'm rather ashamed that I didn't notice it was still > in the text, since I've for some time been of the opinion > that the explcit deferral of @(cb) is essential to get > reasonable behaviour from clocking inputs. This surprised me a bit. If you have a module clocking block, say: clocking cb @(posedge clk); input #0 d; endclocking and have some other behavior: int x = 0; int y = 0; always @(posedge clk) x <= 1; always @(cb) y <= 1; Now imagine that you were doing a coverpoints, based on posedge clk, on both x and y. The fact that the coverage wouldn't match would likely be very surprising. > However, as you say the problem arises only if you want > design code to be able to do #0 sampling, and that's > a fairly odd thing to want to do; so I would be OK with > the "surprising effects". This, at least to me, would seem to reduce other surprising behavior and have surprises only in the odd case of a #0 input being read in the same region as the clock. > >> 3) disallow use of a #0 skewed input outside of a program. > > But don't we just get the same problem again if we try to > do input #0 sampling of program variables by program code? Yes, although I think the behavior might be slightly less surprising since they is definitely an iteration through observed for the sample. In general, #0 input where the clock and use of the input occur in the same region are going to be weird. >> or just kill off input # completely... > > Ah, nirvana :-) I wouldn't mind. My preference (in order) would be: 1) kill #0 input 2) remove the guarantee of update before event for #0 inputs 3) remove the equivalence of events statement. 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 Tue Feb 20 09:11:00 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Feb 20 2007 - 09:11:08 PST