Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ttrdc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!mgnetp!ltuxa!ttrdc!levy From: levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) Newsgroups: net.arch,net.micro.68k Subject: Re: Asynchronous State machines Message-ID: <601@ttrdc.UUCP> Date: Sat, 23-Nov-85 18:03:09 EST Article-I.D.: ttrdc.601 Posted: Sat Nov 23 18:03:09 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 25-Nov-85 06:43:29 EST References: <389@aum.UUCP> <6077@utzoo.UUCP> <395@aum.UUCP> <6111@utzoo.UUCP> <6144@utzoo.UUCP> Organization: AT&T, Computer Systems Division, Skokie, IL Lines: 26 Xref: watmath net.arch:2156 net.micro.68k:1363 In article <6144@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: > >I don't remember the time needed for STTL, since in my opinion nobody in >his right mind uses STTL now that FTTL is available. FTTL does indeed >settle faster. Note the relationship between settling time and synchronizer >performance is *not* linear. FTTL is not just better, it is lots better. >-- > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry Note: Lots of people in their right mind use _L_STTL instead of FTTL whenever it will work. Reason? FCC emission regulations. FTTL is N-O-I-S-Y. It is a pain in the *ss if you design in ANYTHING which has a switching speed any higher than required if you are FCC conscious and you don't have everything sealed up inside a metal shield. My apologies of course (to head off "you missed the point, jerk" flames) if we are merely talking in the arena of experimental equipment, not production equipment. -- ------------------------------- Disclaimer: The views contained herein are | dan levy | yvel nad | my own and are not at all those of my em- | an engihacker @ | ployer or the administrator of any computer | at&t computer systems division | upon which I may hack. | skokie, illinois | -------------------------------- Path: ..!ihnp4!ttrdc!levy