errata/526: Re: errata/526: 7.8 "conflicting strength is ignored" ??

From: Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com
Date: Tue Jan 06 2004 - 12:30:00 PST

  • Next message: Steven Sharp: "errata/526: Re: errata/526: 7.8 "conflicting strength is ignored" ??"

    The following reply was made to PR errata/526; it has been noted by GNATS.

    From: Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com
    To: Steven Sharp <sharp@cadence.com>
    Cc: etf-bugs@boyd.com
    Subject: Re: errata/526: 7.8 "conflicting strength is ignored" ??
    Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 22:39:08 +0200 (IST)

     But that is simply illegal, both according to the text (7.1.2) and the BNF
     (Syntax 7-1). So maybe it was intended to refer to the strength0 part of a
     (strength0, strength1) specification for a pullup (and opposite for
     pulldown)?
     
     Shalom
     
     
     On Tue, 6 Jan 2004, Steven Sharp wrote:
     
    > >What does "conflicting strength specification" mean ?
    >
    > I would guess that it means specifying a 0 drive strength on a pullup
    > or a 1 drive strength on a pulldown. For example:
    >
    > pullup (weak0) p1(w);
    >
    > This will produce a warning in XL and NC, and drive w with pull1 (ignoring
    > the weak0 specification). The warning in NC actually calls this a
    > conflicting drive strength, which doesn't prove anything except that
    > another implementor came to the same conclusion that I did about what
    > this term was intended to mean.
     
     --
     Shalom Bresticker Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com
     Design, Verification & Reuse Methodology Tel: +972 9 9522268
     Motorola Semiconductor Israel, Ltd. Fax: +972 9 9522890
     POB 2208, Herzlia 46120, ISRAEL Cell: +972 50 441478
     

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Jan 06 2004 - 12:30:02 PST and
    sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.