Continue to Site

Welcome to EDAboard.com

Welcome to our site! EDAboard.com is an international Electronics Discussion Forum focused on EDA software, circuits, schematics, books, theory, papers, asic, pld, 8051, DSP, Network, RF, Analog Design, PCB, Service Manuals... and a whole lot more! To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.

Register Log in

Difference between blocking and nonblocking in Verilog

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

ruwan2

Member level 5
Joined
Nov 29, 2011
Messages
90
Helped
0
Reputation
0
Reaction score
0
Trophy points
1,286
Activity points
2,141
Hi,

I am new to Verilog. Although there are already posts talking about blocking and nonblocking on line, it is still not sure to me on a specific example. I see one hand-out as:
verilogblk.PNG

It has "y=", but it shows non-blocking in the legend below. "y=" is a typo?

Then, I simulate this simple module in Modelsim. I do not see any difference with both "y=" and "y<=". Is this true (no difference here) for both simulation and synthesis?

The above example is from the link:
**broken link removed**

on slide 7 of page 2.


Thanks,
 
Last edited:

In the case you show there will be no difference between using blocking and non-blocking, but it's inadvisable to use a non-blocking assignment in a combinational always block.

Unfortunately I don't have the link to a very good paper that showed the differences between using blocking/non-blocking in combinational/sequential always blocks and what the result of synthesis/simulation would give. The end result was there are gotchas that can occur if using blocking assignments in sequential always blocks and using non-blocking assignments in combinational always blocks.

So for best practices:

combination always blocks, use blocking assignments, infers combinational logic:
Code: 
always @ * begin
  y = (a | b) ^ c;
  z = y & D;   // equivalent to having written: z = ((a | b) ^ c) & D;
end

sequential always blocks, use non-blocking assignments, infers registered logic (flip-flops)
Code: 
always @ (posedge clk) begin
  y <= (a | b) ^ c;
  z <= y & D;  // equivalent to having: z = ((a(-1) | b(-1)) ^ c(-1)) & D(0); (-1) old value of a, b, and c that make up current value of y(0) and the current value of D.
end

Try these examples with different combinations of blocking/non-blocking and you will see differences in behavior.


Regards
 
  • Like
Reactions: ruwan2

    R

    ruwan2

    Points: 2
    Helpful Answer Positive Rating
Nope, that's not the one. The page I ran across had some very nice diagrams and quadrant based tables of the various combinations nb-comb, nb-seq, b-comb, b-seq. with nice big red slashed circle (\) over the combinations that shouldn't be used. With examples of why they shouldn't be used.

I think it may have been a Verilog coding guideline handout done by a university professor, but it's been a while since I ran across it so I might not be remembering correctly.
 

hi
plesae correct me if i am wrong
try this code
Code:
Code: 
always@ (a || b) begin
 
  e = b+a;
  d = e*b;
  $monitor("d==%b",d);
end

give b=1,a=0,c=0;
if u give blocking statement then only it will work otherwise it give x value
 

Why do I need to try it? I already know it's combinational logic and requires blocking assignments.
 

ads-ee said:
Why do I need to try it? I already know it's combinational logic and requires blocking assignments.
Click to expand...

its not the replay to u adds-ee .its to ruwan.
really sorry for posting like that.i should have use quotes. actually iam new in this forum..
 

dipin said:
Code: 
always@ (a || b) begin
Click to expand...

This isn't correct, || is a logical OR operation. Sensitivity lists in Verilog are separated by either or or , not ||, regardless you should use * for combinational always block.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dipin

    D

    dipin

    Points: 2
    Helpful Answer Positive Rating
ads-ee said:
This isn't correct, || is a logical OR operation. Sensitivity lists in Verilog are separated by either or or , not ||, regardless you should use * for combinational always block.
Click to expand...

thanks for the correction
 

synthesize both blocking and non-blocking and see differences.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Part and Inventory Search

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top