From: Dennis Marsa (drm@xilinx.com)
Date: Tue Apr 01 2003 - 12:10:02 PST
Precedence: bulk
The following reply was made to PR errata/318; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Dennis Marsa <drm@xilinx.com>
To: Brad Pierce <Brad.Pierce@synopsys.com>
Cc: etf-bugs@boyd.com
Subject: Re: errata/318: Table 30, 9.3.2,procedural assign to nonconstant part
select and force of nonconstantbit-select
Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 13:07:26 -0700
Brad Pierce wrote:
>
> Precedence: bulk
>
> >Number: 318
> >Category: errata
> >Originator: "Brad Pierce" <Brad.Pierce@synopsys.com>
> >Environment:
> >Description:
>
> In Table 30, why can the left-hand side of a procedural
> assignment use a nonconstant bit-select or a nonconstant
> indexed part-select, but only a constant part-select?
>
> In 9.3.2 why can the left-hand side of a force be a nonconstant
> part-select, but only a constant bit-select?
>
> -- Brad
A part-select is by definition constant. That is, the msb and
lsb expressions are required to be constant expressions in all
contexts. See BNF rule range_expression in A.8.3.
In Table 30, where the term "constant part-select" is used,
the "constant" is redundant.
In 9.3.2, where just the term "part-select" is used, the
fact that it is constant is implicit in the definition of
a part-select. Note the word "nonconstant" is not used in
9.3.2.
For bit-selects and indexed part-selects, it makes sense to
distinguish between constant and non-constant forms. But
not for part-selects, they are always constant.
Dennis
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4
: Tue Apr 01 2003 - 12:10:35 PST
and
sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.