On Mon, 2014-08-04 at 08:03 +0200, tgingold@free.fr wrote: > > I don't know what it implies for VHDL implementors but in the end, > > this would help reduce the amount of work for future language > > revisions > > since people would be able to experiment and play, and even actually > > use the features that they need for their job, without interfering > > with VHDL's philosophy or core principles. I like it :-) > > But you can do such experiment already today (and even with vhdl 87): > declare a record type with one integer element, add declare all the > operations you need: +, -, and, or, ... > > No need to perverse an existing feature to do experimentations. I think Whygee's point is that while there are ways of experimenting with the semantics today, using records, what he wants is the performance of native boolean/shift operators on integer-like quantities. My suspicion is that adding modular types natively will get close to the performance gain he wants (compiling down to native machine instructions), but that adding the semantics via heavier tools like resolution functions - or records - might add most of the performance penalty of signals over variables and thus destroy what he wants to accomplish. Your vastly greater knowledge of a simulator implementation may shed some light on this. - Brian -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Mon Aug 4 00:49:40 2014
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Aug 04 2014 - 00:50:26 PDT