Re: [vhdl-200x] Request for Opinion: Should 1076.6 be subsumed into the main 1076 standard?

From: ht-lab <>
Date: Fri May 16 2014 - 01:25:56 PDT
On 15/05/2014 23:44, Brent Hayhoe wrote:
> The subject states the question.
> My own opinion is that it should follow in the similar way of 1076.3 
> and 1164 because it is so integral to mechanism of design within the 
> simulation and synthesis environments.
> Keeping it separate, by necessity means that at some point in time, it 
> will become out of date to the main LRM until it is revised, or worse 
> still 'withdrawn' (due to lack of WG support?) as is the current 
> situation.
> It also may generate wider vendor implementation due to the marketing 
> requirement of being able to claim full VHDL LRM compliance.
> The two remaining derivatives - VHDL-AMS and VITAL - are both complex 
> and self-contained to warrant being separate related standards.
> What do people think?
I agree that combining the two standards is a good idea as they are an 
integral part for most users. I don't believe I have ever seen a 
synthesis tool that claims to be compliant with the 1076.6 standard or 
even mention it. VHDL-AMS and VITAL should remain separate to keep the 
LRM lean.

VITAL will probably fade away as soon as simulators become dual language 
out of the box.


This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Received on Fri May 16 01:27:14 2014

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri May 16 2014 - 01:28:59 PDT