Hi, Le 2014-10-24 05:52, tgingold@free.fr a écrit : >> Frankly, before we go supporting modular types, I'd like to see >> longer integers than 32 bit signed integers. That limitation is more >> of a pain to work around than working with modular arithmetic using >> the language as-is. > > Nothing in the language prevents from having integer types longer than > 32 bits. That's a implementation issue; you should ask your vendor to > support them. > > What you may want to is have the Std.Standard.Integer longer than > 32 bits. I am not sure that this is a good idea. One of VHDL issue > is that Integer is used at many places (and more places that needed). So "vendors" will oppose the argument of paragraph #2 when they receive the request of paragraph #1. This sounds depressing... > What is wrong with numeric_bit or numeric_std ? They provide all the > needs of integer/modular types, but cannot be used easily to index > arrays or as the type of iterator. Maybe we should concentrate on > that point. What I see often is that you tell here and there "If they aren't fast enough, complain to your vendor.". That argument would gain credence if you led by example ^_^ What I complain about, is that the language forces convoluted and heavy operations when the same operator is already provided natively by any CPU, yet the language actively prevents their actual use. Why do we have to "optimise" heavy packages when the solution is already there, a "low-hanging fruit" ? Why would the language work against the user ? > Tristan. YG -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Thu Oct 23 21:06:46 2014
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Oct 23 2014 - 21:07:15 PDT