Subject: RE: CP-003
From: Bert Molenkamp (molenkam@cs.utwente.nl)
Date: Wed Feb 19 2003 - 02:30:16 PST
> Thus, I think option 2 wins over the status quo. I would support adding
corresponding
> overloads for bit/bit_vector in std.standard.
>
I agree with this.
> What I am asking in this proposal (and the similar one
> I requested of 1076.3 for "+") is that you remember an
> additional set of properties:
..
> For math operators,
> '1' becomes "000 ...1"
> '0' becomes "000 ...0"
>
> Yes, using arrays with bits does add some non-orthagonality
> to the operator overloading, but this is engineering and
> non-orthagonality is a normal part of life.
Although not relevant (at this time) would a user expect the
proposed extension for math operators?
Signal a : signed (3 downto 0);
Signal b : unsigned( 3 downto 0);
May be the user expects:
a and '1' ==> a and "1111" sign extension since a is a signed
b and '1' ==> b and "0001" since b is an unsigned
(In 1076.3 for arithmetic operations a +'1' (and b + '1')
is not supported)
Egbert Molenkamp
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Feb 19 2003 - 02:40:19 PST