RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [vhdl-200x] conditional compilation proposal

I was not suggesting that it would be the same as a sequential generate,
only that it would provide fine-grain conditional compilation.

A sequential generate is another option.

--Scott

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org [mailto:owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org] On
> Behalf Of Jones, Andy D
> Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 10:35 AM
> To: 'vhdl-200x@eda.org'
> Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: RE: [vhdl-200x] conditional compilation proposal
>
> One of the things that generate does is fail analysis if the condition is
not
> static.
>
> Having a requirement to collapse an if-then during elaboration if the
> condition happens to be static is not the same as having a sequential
> generate in that regard.
>
> Andy D Jones
> Electrical Engineering
> Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control Dallas TX
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org [mailto:owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org] On
> Behalf Of Scott Thibault
> Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 9:19 AM
> To: vhdl-200x@eda.org
> Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [vhdl-200x] conditional compilation proposal
>
> It is not a proposal, just a discussion. I'm only pointing out that there
are
> language based solutions that handle common conditional compilation use
> cases.
>
> As far as sequential if statements are concerned, there is no need for new
> keywords or semantics. You could merely define what a static if statement
> is, and require that static if's be collapsed.
>
> --Scott
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org [mailto:owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org] On
> > Behalf Of Evan Lavelle
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 9:31 AM
> > To: vhdl-200x@eda.org
> > Subject: Re: [vhdl-200x] conditional compilation proposal
> >
> > On 17/08/2011 13:33, Scott Thibault wrote:
> >
> > > No a sequential generate is not necessary. As you pointed out, the
> > > existing sequential if statement is suitable for that purpose. The
> > > only thing necessary for that is a defined function.
> >
> > I did *not* point out that an if statement is suitable for that
> > purpose,
> and it is
> > not suitable, by any stretch of the imagination. A *new* "static if"
> > might
> be
> > considered by some as suitable for that purpose, as I have pointed out
> > in detail elsewhere, with the issues that I have also pointed out in
detail.
> Your 'if
> > defined()' construct could be construed to have the same semantic
> > meaning, but only if "if defined" or some equivalent becomes a
> > reserved word, and the argument is required to be static. Simply using
> > 'defined' as a
> function
> > name doesn't do it.
> >
> > Your proposal - if it actually is a proposal - is that conditional
> compilation
> > should be handled by a combination of *3* features: the existing
> concurrent
> > generate, a new "declaration generate", and a new mechanism to test
> > static expressions inside sequential code.
> >
> > -Evan
> >
> > --
> > This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
> > MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
> MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.