From: Adam Krolnik (adamk@cyrix.com)
Date: Mon Feb 23 1998 - 23:16:32 PST
Thomas Fitzpatrick forwards these comments:
> This semantic requirement ensures that the constant width requirement
> is met. This also requires the same piece of information to be
> represented twice, which leads to uneccessary duplication and also
> places the onus on the tools to ensure that the expressions are the
> same, thus it would have to allow:
>
> [8*ith+7 : ith*8]
> [3+7*foo:foo*7+8+3]
>
> etc., etc.
>
> Imagine the complexity of the checking for this. Therefore, I propose
> a syntax which only specifies the variable expression once, something
I am worried that this specification of a constant difference and the requirement of the
simulator to verify this will eventually be the undoing of this proposal. I am opposed to
another syntax for specifying this constant difference, and would rather see the proposal
bite the bullet and specify a fully dynamic part select instead. Yes this is harder than
a constant difference, but a richer ability.
Maybe our discussions on BTF-B25 (struct/record data types) will make it easier to get the effect of mutable part selects.
<p> Adam Krolnik
Verification Engineer
Cyrix - NSM.
Richardson TX. 75085
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4
: Mon Jul 08 2002 - 12:52:46 PDT
and
sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.