Subject: Re: [sv-bc] Fwd: RE: Slice with unpacked arrays
From: Kevin Cameron x3251 (Kevin.Cameron@nsc.com)
Date: Tue Feb 04 2003 - 15:08:23 PST
> From David.Rich@synopsys.com Tue Feb 4 14:13:56 2003
> From: "Dave Rich" <David.Rich@synopsys.com>
> Organization: Synopsys VTG
> X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
> To: "Kevin Cameron x3251" <Kevin.Cameron@nsc.com>
> cc: sv-bc@eda.org
> Subject: Re: [sv-bc] Fwd: RE: Slice with unpacked arrays
>
>
>
> Kevin Cameron x3251 wrote:
>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Are you including assignment in declarations?
> >
> Yes. Anywhere an unpacked assignment is legal
>
> >
> >If your LHS is a packed struct/array can you still tell?
> >
> Yes. The RHS can only be an unpacked concat if the LHS is unpacked. So a
> packed LHS implies that the RHS is a packed concat.
So I would always have to cast an unpacked concat if I'm assigning it to a packed
aggregate (of the same type)?
> >
> >Would it be easier to say all unpacked concatenations need to be cast?
> >
> Yes, for the tool developer.
> No, for the end user.
There seems to be the possibility for non-obvious unintended behavior here, so
what I gain in keystrokes I'm probably going to lose in debug time.
I think it would be safer to say that you always have to cast unpacked concats
for the time being (with a few to removing the restriction later).
Kev.
> >
> >Kev.
> >
> >
> >
> >>Unpacked concatenations are not legal on the LHS of an assignment statement. (Making them legal would introduce ambiguities, plus casting on the LHS is not legal)
> >>
> >>
> >>Dave
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> --
> Dave Rich
> Principal Engineer, CAE, VTG
> Tel: 650-584-4026
> Cell: 510-589-2625
> DaveR@Synopsys.com
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Feb 04 2003 - 15:09:19 PST