Re: behavioral vs post-P&R simulation mismatch
- From: "KJ" <kkjennings@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 02:06:29 GMT
"tullio" <tullio.grassi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1156946690.228935.57540@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I found the problem, it was actually in the signed logic.<snip>
PS: Xilinx should give a bonus to users for finding their bugs...
Plus I could not find good guidlines on how XST interpret signed logic.
Opening a service request to Xilinx would be a good first step. Even now
that you 'know' the solution, Xilinx doesn't know about it until you let
them know through some mechanism.
KJ
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: behavioral vs post-P&R simulation mismatch
- From: tullio
- Re: behavioral vs post-P&R simulation mismatch
- References:
- behavioral vs post-P&R simulation mismatch
- From: tullio
- Re: behavioral vs post-P&R simulation mismatch
- From: Andreas Ehliar
- Re: behavioral vs post-P&R simulation mismatch
- From: tullio
- behavioral vs post-P&R simulation mismatch
- Prev by Date: Spartan 3 PCI-X 133Mhz
- Next by Date: Re: Spartan 3 PCI-X 133Mhz
- Previous by thread: Re: behavioral vs post-P&R simulation mismatch
- Next by thread: Re: behavioral vs post-P&R simulation mismatch
- Index(es):