On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 14:34:36 -0800, Brian Aker wrote: > From your argument I take it that you would go with number 2? I > thought it was sloppy to not catch the failure, which is why I added > the loop, but I agree with you that it should be fine to miss a clock > count.
I actually didn't get your description of the problem altogether, sorry. So I would go with "don't change anything" this time ;). Maybe someone else will be able to comment... -- Tomash Brechko
