RE: [vhdl-200x] Standard Package enhancements

Hi Daniel,

I think in the end, the designer has to constrain the ranges. So if the lengths are the same, I feel there shouldn't be much increase in memory requirements for compilers? For example, the following two expressions should use the same amount of compiler memory?

My intention for was regarding the size of signal/variable declaration. As of today, being natural range, user can use signal/variable of size 2**31(0 to integer’high) but once we changed it to integer range, it will be integer’low to integer’high(-2**31 to 2**31-1) hence twice the range of natural. Compiler side don’t have to bother about this.


Regards,
dhiRAj

From: owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org [mailto:owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Kho
Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2015 1:20 PM
To: vhdl-200x@eda.org
Subject: Re: [vhdl-200x] Standard Package enhancements



On 17 April 2015 at 04:17, Dhiraj Kumar Prasad <dhiraj.kumar.prasad@xilinx.com<mailto:dhiraj.kumar.prasad@xilinx.com>> wrote:

<snip>
standard.vhd:
    type BOOLEAN_VECTOR is array (INTEGER range <>) of BOOLEAN;
    type BIT_VECTOR is array (INTEGER range <>) of BIT;
    type INTEGER_VECTOR is array (INTEGER range <>) of INTEGER;
    type REAL_VECTOR is array (INTEGER range <>) of REAL;
    type TIME_VECTOR is array (INTEGER range <>) of TIME;
[dhiRAj]: Yes, I don’t see any harm in this rather it will give increase the memory size by 2X( integer range ~= 2 of natural range)
I think in the end, the designer has to constrain the ranges. So if the lengths are the same, I feel there shouldn't be much increase in memory requirements for compilers? For example, the following two expressions should use the same amount of compiler memory?
    signal s0: boolean_vector(0 to 8);
    signal s1: boolean_vector(-4 to 4);    -- assuming negative indices are permitted

[dhiRAj] Do we want to go from strict type check to relax type check like System Verilog? I assume that we don’t want to relax type checking so instead of going for implicit, we can have conversion function for this.
Yes, I don't mind conversion functions, such as the TO_XXX() functions as mentioned by Woody.

Best regards,
Daniel

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner<http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
believed to be clean.


This email and any attachments are intended for the sole use of the named recipient(s) and contain(s) confidential information that may be proprietary, privileged or copyrighted under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, copy, or forward this email message or any attachments. Delete this email message and any attachments immediately.


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.