Re: Resolving timer/cross scheduling ambiguity using post timestep

Subject: Re: Resolving timer/cross scheduling ambiguity using post timestep
From: S. Peter Liebmann (spl@antrim.com)
Date: Tue Jul 10 2001 - 13:54:10 PDT

You are correct.
By the way,
I should have read the example with timer better:
period=2;
@(timer(s_t,period)) begin
    period=3;
end

due to the sequential nature of an analog block, the
period used in timer is always 2!!
It changes to 3 at specified times and remains at that value till
either it is modified or leaves the analoc block.
It is like an "if" except you cannot have contribution statments
in the "@" block.

> After thinking about it further, I was wondering if the
> use of '@' is causing confusion. My understanding of how
> this stuff works is that the solver steps from acceptance
> point to acceptance point where it re-evaluates the code.
> The '@' statements indicate other times at which the code
> needs to be re-evaluated but are not seperate processes
> (as in digital Verilog), i.e. the entire analog block
> is sensitive, and the relevent '@' statement is active
> (the '@' reads like an 'if') at the time of the '@' event.
>
> - is that correct?
>
> Kev. 

-- 
Peter Liebmann        

Antrim Design Systems, Inc.
Tel. 831-430-4804
Fax. 831-430-1904

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 14:05:49 PDT