>From: "Stuart Sutherland" <stuart@sutherland-hdl.com> >> 1715 ___ Yes _X_ No >> http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0001715 >I vote no for two reasons. >1) There have been issues raised by other voters that need to be resolved. >2) 1800 14.10 shows an example of @(dram) and says it is equivalent to >@(posedge phi1). Using this same clocking example, the proposed use of >wait(dram) implies that it is equivalent to wait(posedge phi1), which I >consider to an undesirable change to the wait construct. I didn't see anything in the proposal that suggested you could do wait(dram). It talked about wait(dram.triggered). 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 Fri Oct 26 08:14:21 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Oct 26 2007 - 08:14:55 PDT