RE: 4 State Logic Proposals

>> For your proposal to be compatible with what Russ is asking for you 
>> need to modify it to state that 4-state *types* are 
>supported in both 
>> directions, but only 0 and 1 can be passed from the SW side 
>to the HW 
>> side.  Do you agree?
>
>Russ, can you confirm that you want the ability to send X's or Z's from
>SW->HW?  If this is the case, then my proposal will not work.

I don't want the ability to send X's or Z's in any direction. I just want
the
IFLC or compiler or whatever you call it to not reject 4-state data types.

I also don't think (but with less fervency) that sending X's or Z's should
cause
a run time error. I'd rather have a warning generated and the data coerced
to 
1's or 0's. Leaving it as "undefined behavior" is acceptable as long as
that's 
not universally interpreted by all SCEMI 2.0 vendors as allowing a run time
error
to occur.



---------------------------------------
---    Russ Vreeland (949)926-6143  ---
---    vreeland@broadcom.com        ---
---    Senior Principal Engineer    ---
---    Broadcom Corporation         ---
---------------------------------------
>
>> Shabtay said that usage of 4-state values X and Z and 
>4-state types in 
>> the SW->HW direction is left as undefined behavior in 
>SCE-MI.  Are you 
>> now contradicting him?
>
>In this proposal, there would be no need for undefined 
>behavior if only 2-state types are allowed in the SW->HW direction.
>
>Regards,
>Jason
>
>