On Tue, Apr 06, 2004 at 11:57:09AM -0700, Samuel A. Falvo II wrote: > Why can't I write this instead: > > always @(posedge CLK_I) begin > if( RXMASKL_E ) // changed to active high signal for convenience > rxmask[7:0] <= DAT_I[7:0]; > if( RXMASKH_E ) > rxmask[15:8] <= DAT_I[7:0]; > end > > always @(RST) // level sensitive, asynchronous reset > if( ~_RST ) > rxmask <= 16'h0040; > end
If you expect an implementation of rxmask with flip-flops having an asynchronous clear/set input, then it may be better to have a single always block. This is based on my limited experience with synthesizeing vhdl with synplicity a couple of years ago ... so possibly not applicable in you situation. Berni
