Re: Merged version of chapter 6

Geoffrey,

I dont think the few simulators that i have come across have implemented 
what Ken was referring to - ie. disabling cross when direction is not 
one of the three values. Hence i was bit concerned about interpreting 
the syntax in this fashion now as it would not be compatible. V1.0 is 
way too early for me to comment on the background of it.

I also want to be careful to allow syntax for disabling syntax unless we 
clearly identify/define the behavior when an active event is disabled 
and also when an event is re-enabled.

Finally, as i have mentioned earlier might be good to look at events in 
general w.r.to disabling feature and how best to support it.

cheers,
Sri


Geoffrey.Coram wrote:
> I guess there are two possibilities that might have been implemented:
> 1) other values disable the cross
> 2) any positive value is interpreted as +1, any negative as -1
> 
> Ken says that Cadence uses (1).  Are there any simulators that do (2)?
> 
> The sentence I copied from the LRM seems to indicate that it would be
> an error to use a value other than 0,+1,-1 (though the LRM doesn't
> quite use IEEE-standard language (shall)).
> 
> -Geoffrey
> 
> 
> 
> Sri Chandra wrote:
>> event. I am not sure how many implementations interpret it in that
>> fashion ie. arguments not +1, 0, -1 disable the cross, and this is going
>> to lead to compatibility issues with existing implementations.
>>
>