Re: [sv-bc] confusion in determining the type of an self determined binary expression during evalution of type operator

From: Gordon Vreugdenhil <gordonv_at_.....>
Date: Tue Oct 16 2007 - 07:11:39 PDT
Feldman, Yulik wrote:
> I didn't imply that it has a self-determined type. I just gave examples
> of expression kinds that may have a complex data type, self-determined
> or context-determined.

Yulik, I believe that you are suggesting that a (part)select should not
necessarily be normalized but should carry its range information
around (more like VHDL).  I would almost certainly object to that
approach as a general requirement.

The reason for the objection is that there is no Verilog precedent
for needing that information in general and adding such a requirement
would definitely have an impact on simulation performance.  Given the
limited  contexts in which the information is used, it would be better
to assume normalization everywhere other than a very few specific
circumstances.

I know that various people have talked about wanting to have selects
on general expressions and that this position impacts that.

If someone wants to try to write up a full description of normalization
rules and/or un-normalized cases, I'd certainly review it, but I'm
likely going to be wary of any deep requirement regarding
non-normalized expressions.

Gord.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Vreugdenhil                                503-685-0808
Model Technology (Mentor Graphics)                gordonv@model.com


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Received on Tue Oct 16 07:13:48 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Oct 16 2007 - 07:13:59 PDT