Simon Burge wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 10:10:43PM -0700, Jason R Thorpe wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 05:08:38PM +1200, Gregory McGarry wrote:
> > 
> >  > In terms of hardware handshake, then perhaps it isn't.  In the context
> >  > of delay() and DELAY() doing the same thing, then it doesn't make
> >  > sense to me to have both.  Is that what you meant?
> > 
> > You're right, it doesn't make sense to have both, but I'm not convinced
> > that DELAY() is the right one :-)
> 
> The way I recall it is that DELAY() is for constant (maybe small?)
> times, and delay() is the "general-purpose" delay function.

That sounds plausible.  Except it isn't consistently implemented
that way round.  Most, if not all, ports don't make a distinction
between the two functions.  Particularly after compiler optimisations
have inlined the code.

I was also planning to add code to check the accuracy of DELAY().
I suspect that some ports, such as the mips-based ones, have delays
which are way out.

	-- Gregory McGarry <g.mcgarry@ieee.org>