From: Steven Sharp (sharp@cadence.com)
Date: Fri Aug 02 2002 - 12:10:07 PDT
Precedence: bulk
The following reply was made to PR errata/84; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Steven Sharp <sharp@cadence.com>
To: etf-bugs@boyd.com, mac@verisity.com
Cc:
Subject: Re: errata/84: Should @* include delay controls?
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 15:04:08 -0400 (EDT)
> I agree; and given that Steve quite correctly point out that we can't
> have both correct iterative vector indexing implict sensitivity, and
> implicit sensitivity to with code that indexes into arrays, with what
> is currently in the standard, I would rather that we lean toward the
> later rather than the former.
I disagree. The intent of @* was to prevent users from making mistakes
that would result in pre- and post-synthesis differences, without any
warning. With your preferred change, we would silently produce incorrect
results. With what is in the standard, certain things could not be
supported, but the user would be notified of that fact. I think that
this is an important distinction.
Furthermore, it may be possible to extend support in the future while
maintaining backward compatibility. If you actually break it, then you
can't fix it while maintaining backward compatibility.
Steven Sharp
sharp@cadence.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4
: Thu Oct 10 2002 - 09:24:27 PDT
and
sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.