errata/557: Re: errata/557: PROPOSAL - 9.3.2, para. 2: net "continuous assignment"

From: Steven Sharp (sharp@cadence.com)
Date: Mon Mar 15 2004 - 13:30:00 PST

  • Next message: Karen Pieper: "Generate Voting"

    The following reply was made to PR errata/557; it has been noted by GNATS.

    From: Steven Sharp <sharp@cadence.com>
    To: etf-bugs@boyd.com, Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com
    Cc:
    Subject: Re: errata/557: PROPOSAL - 9.3.2, para. 2: net "continuous assignment"
    Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 16:41:25 -0500 (EST)

     Sorry Shalom, but I believe that your interpretation of the intent of this
     sentence is incorrect. I believe that my interpretation of the intent is
     correct, and that "as would a net that is assigned with a procedural
     continuous assignment" is referring to a net that was forced. It is
     contrasting the effect of a release on a variable with a release on a net.
     A variable retains its value until it is next assigned, while a net
     immediately jumps to the value that is being driven onto it (since that
     value is conceptually being driven continuously, not updated at specific
     times).
     
     I now have support for my interpretation. Just look at 9.3.2 in the 1995
     standard. It says "After the release procedural statement is executed, the
     register does not immediately change value (as would a net that is forced)."
     
     Apparently it was decided for the 2001 standard to start referring to forces
     as a subset of procedural continuous assignments, and therefore the term
     "forced" was changed to "assigned with a procedural continuous assignment".
     Apparently this confused you, but the original intent clearly matches my
     interpretation.
     
     Steven Sharp
     sharp@cadence.com
     

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Mar 15 2004 - 13:30:06 PST and
    sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.