Re: [vhdl-200x] Modular types, alternative solutions

From: ht-lab <>
Date: Thu Oct 30 2014 - 02:17:25 PDT
Hi Jim,

On 29/10/2014 18:51, Jim Lewis wrote:
> Ray,
> Oops.  I was not clear.  I was referring to "very few 
> engineers/companies asked for VHDL2008 and hence the uptake was rather 
> slow".

I think my statement was a bit too simplistic and obviously there are 
more factors playing in the slow uptake of VHDL2008.

> I agree, 64 bit integers is not a bug.  Asking for them is not 
> non-compliant with the LRM, however larger than 32 bit would 
> potentially be non-portable.  OTOH,

I guess the non-portability (in general) is not really an issue as users 
can compile modules for different standards. I have seen scripts with 
both -87 and -2008 used on the same project.


> Jim
>> And the answer from the vendor when asked to incorporate features not 
>> in the LRM is that such changes don't comply with the spec, so it 
>> isn't a bug, nor is it likely to be implements .  BTDT.
>> On 10/29/2014 12:42 PM, Jim Lewis wrote:
>>> If that is truely the case, then we have a perception issue. 
>>> Engineers simply are not in the practice of having to ask a vendor 
>>> to implement new features of a standard for which the vendor makes a 
>>> product.   From an engineers perspective, having to do that is silly.
>>> So our job is to educate people that if they want the new language 
>>> features, they have to make requests and file bug reports against 
>>> the tools
>>> Cheers,
>>> Jim

This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Received on Thu Oct 30 02:17:59 2014

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Oct 30 2014 - 02:18:26 PDT