Hi, Stu. > > SVDB 1769 ___Yes _X_No > I vote no because the syntax for an elaboration $fatal task > is not the same as for a run-time $fatal task. The former > does not have a "finish_number" > argument. I will change my vote to yes if the two versions > of $fatal are made consistent (and backward compatible). There is no backward compatibility problem because the run-time $fatal is not being changed. The reason the elab $fatal omits the finish number argument is that it has no meaning at elab time. What would you suggest? > >SVDB 2269 ___Yes _X_No > The proposal would have any size cast result in an [n-1:0] > size. I do not think this rule is intuitive or what users > would want every time. Consider the following: > > logic [0:47] foo; > 32'(foo) // results in an expression of [31:0] -- which bit > of foo goes to which bit of the operation result? result[31:0] = foo[16:47]. But remember that there is no variable called "result". 32'(foo) is just an abstract expression. You can't directly access its bits. If you wrote {foo}[0], {foo} is a [47:0] vector, so you will get {foo}[0] == foo[47]. struct packed { logic [0:47] foo; } will also give you a [47:0] entity. This is no different. Regards, Shalom --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.Received on Tue Mar 25 06:47:39 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Mar 25 2008 - 06:47:55 PDT