# ------------------------------------------------------------------------
# (1) Multi-cycle paths using { <early_offset> <late_offset> } syntax
# ------------------------------------------------------------------------
multi_cycle_path -source { 1 2 } -to { MemWrite MemRead }
# ------------------------------------------------------------------------
# (2) Multi-cycle paths using single value notation
# ------------------------------------------------------------------------
multi_cycle_path -source -early 1 -to { MemWrite MemRead }
multi_cycle_path -source -late 2 -to { MemWrite MemRead }
At least that's my reading. Comments?
Cheers......... Bob
>Folks-
>Our tool flagged the multi_cycle_path command as an error.
>Its coded thus in btoh files (where its used):
>
>>
>># ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>># Multi-cycle paths
>># ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>multi_cycle_path -source -early 1 -late 2 -to { MemWrite MemRead }
>>
>
>I interpreted the revised syntax a little differently. I refer to
>http://www.vhdl.org/dcwg/hm/0225.html
>
>which describes the syntax as:
>
> dcd::multi_cycle_path
> ?-target | -source? /* only -source supported for DAC */
> ?-from <pin_list>?
> ?-through <pin_list>?
> ?-to <pin_list>?
> ?-early | -late?
> <cycle_offset> /* only integer values supported for DAC */
>
>>From this I would have expected only one "cycle_offset" and optionally
>either -early or -late (possibly neither).
>
>It looks to me like they are not in agreement?
>
>I have no preference, just want to make things consistent and
>get our code fixed. :-)
>
>
>By the way, I don't know if I ever asked this, but I'm not exactly
>clear on the intent of ?-target | -source? which is used in
>data_required_time and multi_cycle_path. I looked at the related
>BuildGates commands, but didn't see anything I could relate the
>concept to.
>
> Thanks........ Bob
>
>
>