Mark McDougall said:
I'm going to assume that English is not your native language because my
response directly addresses the concerns the OP had in
My English is just fine thank you....I even have the ability to type
'original post' instead of 'OP'. Since the original post was quite
civilized and you've chosen personal insults in your reply that this would
seem to be another one of those 'thread tangents' that you were mentioning.
In this case, I agree that this particular tangent should be shut down.
*all* but the very last sentence.
You mean the sentence that actually ended with the question mark...which
really was a question....the one I answered.
I agree that this particular question was not the poster's main point (which
had been addressed) I just found it funny that your reply said that the
thread had not answered the poster's question and when I looked back there
was only one sentence actually ending in a question mark and indeed it had
not been answered in the thread....or by you...even after making that
statement. So I humorously (but accurately) answered that one last
question.
Just because the preceding sentences weren't
terminated with a question mark doesn't mean the OP wasn't looking for
some sort of re-assurance.
That's your interpretation that the original poster wanted re-assurance.
It seemed to me more of a question of 'Is using the wizard a good design
practice?', 'What are the pros and cons about getting help from Mr.
Wizard?', 'What happens if I target my design to some other device?', that
type of thing was my interpretation. While I won't speak for them, given
the earlier posts from Mike, David, Ben and Andy it would appear to me that
they were probably interpreting it that way too.
So you've ignored the gist of the post altogether and instead given a
totally irrelevant 'answer' to the final question.
No, the 'gist of the post' I think had been adequately addressed already by
the earlier posts (in fact, most of it was covered by Mike's first post in
my opinion). You stated that "everyone in this thread has gone out on a
tangent and the responses have nothing to do with the question" and then you
went off on your own tangent based on your interpretation of what the poster
was looking for. I would suggest that you could have simply replied with
your post without insulting the earlier posters with your "everone in this
thread..." commentary.
The actual point is that the VHDL wrapper created by the megafunction
wizard uses the appropriate library, which is why the instantiating
module doesn't need to know about megafunctions.
Not at all. The fact that the wizard created a wrapper only changes the
name of the entity that will get instantiated by the instantiating module,
it doesn't remove or add any 'library' or 'use' statements (if one chooses
not to use direct instantiation). While it's true that the instantiating
module would not need to know about the function that had been wrapped (in
this case entity 'lpm_counter') but it would need to know about the wrapped
entity (i.e. 'My_MegaWizard_Counter'). Either way, you need to know the
name of an entity and where to find it.
KJ