From: James A. Markevitch (jam@magic.com)
Date: Wed Jan 19 2000 - 15:45:29 PST
> I have verified that it is not legal to mix net declarations that have
> assignments with ones that do not in the same declaration in Verilog-XL.
Ok, that's compatible with Verilog 1995 and with the Draft 4 BNF.
> I have also verified that it is legal to assign a trireg net a value in
> the declaration. I don't think that there is a problem with this aside
> from the inability to declare a drive strength in that situation (which
> is probably to avoid confusion with declaring the capacitive strength
> of the trireg).
What drive strength gets used in this case?
Is (strong1, strong0) assumed?
If so, then is there any value in declaring the net a trireg, since all of
the charge strengths are weaker than strong?
What if the net also has a continuous assignment on it?
This started out as an innocuous observation about the BNF. Mostly, I
wanted to know if this was an error in the BNF or something which was
intentionally added to it, since it isn't in the 1995 BNF. Perhaps we
can discuss this during the BTF telecon.
James Markevitch
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4
: Mon Jul 08 2002 - 12:54:10 PDT
and
sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.