[sv-ac] RE: [sv-bc] Suppression of unique/priority glitches

"This assumes that there is an event control at the top of each
procedural block.  The language doesn't require that there be one."

Yes, and there can be multiple event controls scattered throughout the
procedural block, too.

-- Brad

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On Behalf Of
Steven Sharp
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 5:23 PM
To: sharp@cadence.com; sv-bc@eda-stds.org; gordonv@model.com;
erik.seligman@intel.com
Cc: sv-ac@eda-stds.org
Subject: RE: [sv-bc] Suppression of unique/priority glitches


>From: "Seligman, Erik" <erik.seligman@intel.com>

>I'm not sure I see how this causes a major problem with the "flush 
>deferred assertions at the top of the block" model we were discussing 
>before.  Why can't we define the flushing to occur after the event 
>control at the top of each procedural block?

This assumes that there is an event control at the top of each
procedural block.  The language doesn't require that there be one.

Steven Sharp
sharp@cadence.com


--
This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.