Re: FW: New Mantis Issue #667 for V-1364

From: Steven Sharp (sharp@cadence.com)
Date: Fri Apr 15 2005 - 13:58:32 PDT

  • Next message: Steven Sharp: "RE: FW: New Mantis Issue #667 for V-1364"

    >The proposal has to state exactly where the change will be made.

    Agreed.

    >The term "combinational construct" is not defined and should not be used.
    >Besides, someone might interpret it to mean certain always @() constructs,
    >or at least always @*, which is not the intent.
    >(I would support adding them, though.)

    So would I, by the proposed method of specifying the execution order
    at time zero.

    >"combinational primitive" is not defined, either.
    >There are the built-in primitives
    >(gates, switches) defined in Clause 7 and there are also combinational UDPs.

    The intent was to include all of those (all primitives except sequential
    UDPs).

    >Port connections also need to be included.

    Technically they are already included, since they are defined to be
    continuous assignments, which are already included. (And if they are
    port-collapsed, there is nothing to be executed and no need to do so.)

    Steven Sharp
    sharp@cadence.com

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Apr 15 2005 - 13:35:51 PDT and
    sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.