RE: [sv-bc] part selects on arbitrary expressions

Hi,

I have attached a proposal for bit-selects on part-selects on
concatenations.

Please review.

Thanks,
Shalom

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org 
> [mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Bresticker, Shalom
> Sent: Monday, November 05, 2007 5:20 AM
> To: Brad Pierce; sv-bc@server.eda.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-bc] part selects on arbitrary expressions
> 
> I have been thinking about this for a long time. I believe 
> that the simplest thing to do and the way that has the best 
> chance of being passed within the short time that we have is 
> to define selects on concatenations. There is no ambiguity in 
> that case. It has some limitations, you only have vectors, 
> but I believe it would still add a lot of usefulness.
> 
> Shalom 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org
> > [mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org] On Behalf Of Brad Pierce
> > Sent: Sunday, November 04, 2007 10:50 PM
> > To: sv-bc@server.eda.org
> > Subject: Re: [sv-bc] part selects on arbitrary expressions
> > 
> > Following up to http://www.eda-stds.org/sv-bc/hm/5506.html 
> , I, too, 
> > would like to see this enhancement (selects of arbitrary 
> primaries) in 
> > SV-2008.
> >  
> > In SV-2005, for any expression 'expr',  one can already declare
> >  
> >    var type(expr) temp;
> >  
> > and then write
> >  
> >    temp = expr;
> >    ... temp[5] ...
> >  
> > But one ought to be able to simply write
> >  
> >    ... (expr)[5] ...
> >  
> > More generally, for any primary 'p', one ought to be able to write
> >  
> >    ... p[5] ...
> >  
> > Consider the defintion of static cast --
> >  
> >    "If the expression is assignment compatible with the 
> casting type, 
> > then the cast shall return the value that a variable of the casting 
> > type would hold after being assigned the expression."
> >  
> > We could come up with a similar rule that generalizes selects.
> >  
> > I don't think it's a strong argument against this 
> enhancement to say 
> > that the type() operator is not well enough defined, as noted in
> > 
> >          http://www.eda-stds.org/sv-bc/hm/7082.html
> > 
> > To me that is just an argument for clarifying the definition of the
> > type() operator.
> >  
> > -- Brad
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.