Re: [vhdl-200x-ft] numeric_bit package

David,
Sounds like you have it nailed down.

Cheers,
Jim

> 
>> All,
>> For types signed and unsigned in numeric_bit, we want the same
>> implementation we agreed upon for types signed and unsigned in
>> numeric_std.
> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
>> Given that they are implicitly defined, we can still overload
>> them in numeric_bit. Worst case is we use the rules of FT01, but
>> perhaps this one does not require the new rules
>> since the types signed and unsigned will be both
>> created and overloaded in the same package, numeric_bit.
> 
> 
> Yes, but if they are implicit, why not use the ones in the that are
> implied?  I have run a testcase to prove the functionality of the
> implicit shift operators, and they are working great.
> 
> My plans are the following:
> 
> 1) numeric_bit - remove all shift operators EXCEPT "sra" and "sla",
> which I will implement there directly.  NOTE:  These were there
> in the original 1076.3 version of "numeric_bit", I am commenting them out.
> 
> 2) std_logic_1164 - implement "sll", "srl", "ror", and "rol".
> Specifically do NOT implement "sra" and "sla" in this package.
> 
> 3) numeric_bit_unsigned - implement "sra" and "sla" in this package
> (treats bit_vector as an unsigned).  Overrides the default functionality.
> 
> 4) numeric_std - Implement "sla" and "sra" to be mathmetically correct.
> "sll", "srl", "ror", and "rol" are already there.
> 
> 5) numeric_unsigned - implement "sra" and "sla" in this package
> for "std_logic_vector".
> 
> 6) fixed_pkg - same as "numeric_std".
> 
> 7) fphdl_base_pkg - NO shift operations implemented.
> 
> 


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Lewis
Director of Training             mailto:Jim@SynthWorks.com
SynthWorks Design Inc.           http://www.SynthWorks.com
1-503-590-4787

Expert VHDL Training for Hardware Design and Verification
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~