VHDL Standards Invitation and Status

Discussion in 'VHDL' started by Jim Lewis, May 9, 2013.

  1. Jim Lewis

    Jim Lewis Guest

    Hi,
    The VHDL Standards group is currently working on VHDL 1076-201X.
    Currently we are working on developing language change proposals.
    Check them out at:
    http://www.eda.org/twiki/bin/view.cgi/P1076/CollectedRequirements

    Did we miss something? Could the proposals be better?

    Join us and help out. We have many tasks that can involve
    a wide range of skills. For starters we need users
    reviewing proposals and saying, yes if you add that I
    will use it. For more experienced VHDL users, we have
    proposals that need owners or helpers working on them.
    Proposals describe the problem, and identify a solution
    to it. After the proposals are done, we need highly
    knowledgeable VHDL community members to help convert
    the proposals into LRM text. Some may participate in all
    tasks, some may only participate in one or two.

    Lets face it while standards take time, they take less
    time with more participation.

    Best Regards,
    Jim Lewis
    IEEE P1076 VHDL Working Group Chair
    VHDL Training Expert, http://www.SynthWorks.com
    OSVVM, Chief Architect and Co-founder
     
    Jim Lewis, May 9, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Jim Lewis

    GaborSzakacs Guest

    I didn't look very deep into the existing requests, but I wonder if
    anyone considered bit reversal, for example allowing SLV's defined
    as (N downto 0) to be referenced in reverse order (0 to N).

    PRO:
    Reduces use of loops for intentional bit reversal

    CON:
    Could happen unintentionally when you thought you had a
    signal defined with "downto", when it was actually defined
    with "to" causing undesired bit reversal.
     
    GaborSzakacs, May 9, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Jim Lewis

    Andy Guest

    Rather than allow the reverse range to be used as an index range, I would prefer a standard function(s), such as right_to_left() to return a bit-reversed vector (with reversed range to match.)

    Such a fix would have far less impact on tool vendors (and therefore adoption/support) than directly allowing reversed range access of vectors.

    I would also prefer such a function NOT be defined for types for which numeric interpretations (arithmetic, conversion between integer/real) are defined in the same standard package. This would allow right_to_left(SLV), even though numeric interpretation of SLV is applied by numeric_std_unsigned.

    If a user wants to write their own overloaded function for unsigned, etc. so be it, but it should not be in the numeric_standard package. Especially so for fixed point types, which depend on index values for numeric interpretation.

    Andy
     
    Andy, May 9, 2013
    #3
  4. Jim Lewis

    Jim Lewis Guest

    Hi Gabor,
    We don't have any requests for this. Do you have a specific
    use case? This is what is required to initiate a proposal.
    Perhaps you want to post this as a separate thread to gauge
    the interest level.

    I agree with Andy, it would be bad to do this with index ranges,
    however, a reverse function would work just as well.
    If it were something for broad usage, I would prefer an implicitly
    defined function - like "&" which is implicitly defined for all
    single dimensional arrays.

    Jim
     
    Jim Lewis, May 22, 2013
    #4
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.