Subject: Re: C_COMP etc.

From: Arpad Muranyi <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 94 11:52:01 PST

Text item: 

Jon,

As far as I remember, we said that the measured waveforms could be time 
correlated by referencing all waveforms to a driving clock common to all edges. 
Correct me if I am wrong.

Arpad

Ibis type persons,

I don't know whether this went out before or not. I had a memory blank.

I have been reading the C_COMP arguments and would like to throw one more
concern on the fire. The waveform measurements are defined to be time
corelated (that is, time 0 is the same on all waveforms). I don't know of
a good (or possible) way to do this with physical measurement. We have
discussed this
before but this implies that the waveforms must be made by a simulator.
This means that
the ease of removing C_COMP loading is higher.

Presumably, if C_COMP is included this means a different waveform for
every pin on the chip
which would drastically complicated the model creation process.

jonp

Text item: External Message Header

The following mail header is for administrative use
and may be ignored unless there are problems.

***IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS SAVE THESE HEADERS***.

Subject: C_COMP etc.
To: [email-masked]
From: [email-masked] (Jon Powell)
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 94 17:01:20 PST

---

From: [email-masked] (Jon Powell)
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 94 15:20:24 PST

>>Arpad

This will certainly work for clocked output or straight feedthrough signals (like buffers).
Aren't there lots of other types of signals on, for instance, the Pentinum and 486 chips?

If there aren`t, and all signals can be referenced to a know "intiator", then life should
be good.

jonp