Re: [vhdl-200x] Proposal for improved physical types

Tristan,
As from what I understand from the ArbitraryIntegers proposal, it is not
suggesting to have infinite precision integers at simulation/elaboration
time. It is merely suggesting to have unconstrained integers (yes, infinite
precision if you may) prior to being constrained later at a higher-level
hierarchy of the design, which makes the design synthesizable and finite.

-daniel

On 10 January 2015 at 15:13, Tristan Gingold <tgingold@free.fr> wrote:

> On 10/01/15 07:46, Daniel Kho wrote:
>
>> This is one of the reasons I am supporting the proposal for extended or
>> arbitrary-length integers:
>> http://www.eda-twiki.org/cgi-bin/view.cgi/P1076/ArbitraryIntegers
>>
>
> I still think this proposal is not clear enough.  If infinite precision
> integers (at simulation time) are proposed, that's awful from a
> performance point of view.
>
> I repeat: I am ok with infinite precision at analysis time, and
> not against any but fixed precision at simulation time; but
> certainly not ok with infinite precision at simulation time.
>
> All integer types must have bounds.
>
>
> Tristan.
>
>
> --
> 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.