Ryan, Thanks for taking this on; I've wanted something like this for a while too. I am really swamped right now though. Is your proposal to configure only a direct entity instantiation that does not specify the architecture in the instantiation, or would you allow overriding a specified architecture too? I'm not sure I really care. Being able to "reach into" a directly instantiated entity to configure lower level entities, even if the upper level entity's architecture were specified in the instantiation (perhaps only if the configured architecture and instantiation-specified architecture match?) would also be very helpful, to avoid having to create/maintain component declarations all the way to the top level design unit. I would also like to be able to specify in the configuration, the value of a generic that was not mapped in the instantiation. This would allow setting up defaulted generics on entities, and overriding the default values with configurations, without having to create/maintain components. I currently override unmapped, default generics with a "wrapper" architecture that re-instantiates itself (specifying the original architecture) with the generic mapped to an overriding value. The wrapper architecture is only bound if it is analyzed after the original architecture. Using a configuration would eliminate managing compilation order to invoke/revoke the wrapper architecture for different test cases. Sometimes the wrapper architecture includes simulation instrumentation for the interface, so the ability to configure the architecture and override generics are both desirable. What do you think? 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 ryan.w.hinton@L-3com.com Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 2:27 PM To: vhdl-200x@eda.org Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [vhdl-200x] Open Issues looking for an owner I'll take the configuration for direct instantiation. I was looking hard for a way to do that last week. - Ryan -----Original Message----- From: owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org [mailto:owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org] On Behalf Of Jim Lewis Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 12:49 PM To: vhdl-200x@eda.org Subject: [vhdl-200x] Open Issues looking for an owner Hi At today's meeting, we came across a couple of interesting requests from Bugzilla and we are looking for an owner for them: 292: Configure Architecture of Direct Entity Instantiation. 139: PSL_Declaration should not be in Declaration Find Owner 207: Stop in environment package. Return values ambigous as to what can be done with them. Reserve a range for the LRM uses? Place requirement on implementation to make the return value available some how. What we need to resolve these is a proposal for them on the following page. Simply use the format of one of the other proposals: http://www.eda-twiki.org/cgi-bin/view.cgi/P1076/CollectedRequirements Best Regards, Jim -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Jim Lewis Jim@SynthWorks.com VHDL Training Expert http://www.SynthWorks.com IEEE VHDL Working Group Chair OSVVM, Chief Architect and Cofounder 1-503-320-0782 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -- 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.Received on Thu Dec 12 15:10:33 2013
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Dec 12 2013 - 15:10:57 PST