O
Olaf Petzold
Guest
Hello,
for a benchmark I use these code:
architecture .... is
signal inp_period : time := 1 us;
signal inp_duty_cycle : integer := 90;
begin
stimulie : process is
variable low_period : time :=
((100-inp_duty_cycle)*inp_period)/100;
variable high_period : time :=
(inp_duty_cycle*inp_period)/100;
variable inv : std_logic := '0';
begin
input <= ('1' xor inv) after low_period;
wait on input;
input <= ('0' xor inv) after high_period;
wait on input;
end process;
...
inp_period and inp_duty_cyle are changed at different times in the
testbench. I've got the (modelsim) warning:
Initial value of "low_period" depends on value of signal "inp_duty_cycle".
Initial value of "low_period" depends on value of signal "inp_period".
which are correct. Well, is there a quiet way?
Thanks and regards,
Olaf
for a benchmark I use these code:
architecture .... is
signal inp_period : time := 1 us;
signal inp_duty_cycle : integer := 90;
begin
stimulie : process is
variable low_period : time :=
((100-inp_duty_cycle)*inp_period)/100;
variable high_period : time :=
(inp_duty_cycle*inp_period)/100;
variable inv : std_logic := '0';
begin
input <= ('1' xor inv) after low_period;
wait on input;
input <= ('0' xor inv) after high_period;
wait on input;
end process;
...
inp_period and inp_duty_cyle are changed at different times in the
testbench. I've got the (modelsim) warning:
Initial value of "low_period" depends on value of signal "inp_duty_cycle".
Initial value of "low_period" depends on value of signal "inp_period".
which are correct. Well, is there a quiet way?
Thanks and regards,
Olaf