What you have mentioned in 2072 is exactly what I meant by an improper use of the terms. One way to look on it is to say that the usage of "bit-select" and "part-select" is OK and that the references to other kinds of selects are just missing (your interpretation), and the other way to look on it is to say that the terms were misused, and more general terms should have been used instead (my interpretation). I believe it would be better if more general terms were used were appropriate, instead of adding "and array slice" or the like at almost every place where "bit-select" or "part-select" is used. Here are a few quick random additional picks of the "part-select" term usage in the LRM: * 11.2 says "An operand can be one of the following": "Parameter bit select or part select". What about parameters whose type is multidimensional array? (BTW, it is unrelated, but I have just noticed that the list contains "Any net type" twice for some reason ;)). * The same list says "Packed array, structure or union bit-select, part-select, element or slice". Wouldn't it be much simpler to use a single general term here? BTW, the whole list could be made much shorter, if just a general term would be used. * 11.2.1 again talks about bit-select and part selects of parameters, not noticing other kinds of selects. * 11.5: slices are not referred to. Aren't they operands? * 11.5.1: doesn't these rules apply to slices? * 22.2.2.1: "port reference can be one of the following ...". What about general slices? The full list is much longer. I would replace most references to bit-selects, part-selects, slices and the like to just slices (or whatever), instead of trying to fix all those references to include the whole list of various kinds of slices (which makes the text longer, more complex to understand and more error prone for already made as well as future language extensions). --Yulik. ________________________________ From: Bresticker, Shalom Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 8:49 PM To: Feldman, Yulik Cc: 'sv-bc@server.eda.org' Subject: RE: [sv-bc] confusion in determining the type of an self determined binary expression during evalution of type operator I think that in Table 10-1, the usage of 'bit-select' and 'part-select' is clearly with respect to vectors. I am not sure I looked at the VPI diagrams, but I did look at all the HDL uses of the terms and did not find a problem. Table 10-1 does have problems and I filed Mantis 2072 a few weeks ago on them. Regards, Shalom ________________________________ From: Feldman, Yulik Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 9:14 AM To: Bresticker, Shalom Cc: 'sv-bc@server.eda.org' Subject: RE: [sv-bc] confusion in determining the type of an self determined binary expression during evalution of type operator I'm personally OK with using 'select' as a general term, but this term has to be defined in the LRM to serve as such. I also understand that "bit-selects" and "part-selects", as they currently defined, have different rules from "array slices", as they are currently defined. But in many cases, LRM uses the terms "bit-select" and "part-select" when the intention is actually to refer to "array slices" as well. There are lots of such examples. One quick example is Table 10-1 "Legal left-hand forms in assignment statements"; another is the usage of the terms in the VPI diagrams. I didn't do detailed study, but I have a feeling that these terms more often used to refer to "vectors" as well as "arrays", than specifically just to "vectors". This is confusing. --Yulik. ________________________________ From: Bresticker, Shalom Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 9:12 AM To: Feldman, Yulik Cc: 'sv-bc@server.eda.org' Subject: RE: [sv-bc] confusion in determining the type of an self determined binary expression during evalution of type operator 'select' is a general term. But there are cases which are different rules. Vector bit-selects and part-selects have different rules from array slices in what you can do with them. Shalom ________________________________ From: Feldman, Yulik Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 9:08 AM To: Bresticker, Shalom Cc: 'sv-bc@server.eda.org' Subject: RE: [sv-bc] confusion in determining the type of an self determined binary expression during evalution of type operator My main issue is that there are too many different terms, describing special cases of "selects", instead of having a single general term describing any kind of "select". Even if the existing terms are used consistently, when they are used, the variety of the terms and the lack of one general term cause confusion. --Yulik. ________________________________ From: Bresticker, Shalom Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 10:18 PM To: Feldman, Yulik Cc: 'sv-bc@server.eda.org' Subject: RE: [sv-bc] confusion in determining the type of an self determined binary expression during evalution of type operator I checked and found that 'part-select' and 'bit-select' are used consistently. 'Slice' seems also used consistently. Shalom ________________________________ From: Feldman, Yulik Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 5:31 PM To: Bresticker, Shalom Cc: 'sv-bc@server.eda.org' Subject: RE: [sv-bc] confusion in determining the type of an self determined binary expression during evalution of type operator Yes, and somebody has to clean this mess. The definitions as they appear right now have little sense and, not surprisingly, are not used consistently through the LRM. For example, the 7.4.6 section with its definitions of part-select, slice, slice name and indexed name, creates such a big confusion that any further references to these terms leave the reader in complete prostration. Not surprisingly, the terms like "slice name" are not even used anywhere aside their definition. The presence of additional related definitions in other sections makes the situation even worse. The LRM should have been defined a single term, like "select", or "part select", or even "slice" to refer universally to any kind of "select" and then should have used this term everywhere. Perhaps it would be OK to have a couple of specialized terms likes "field select" to ease explanation in certain cases, but in majority of references a single general term should have been used, to avoid confusion. --Yulik. ________________________________ From: Bresticker, Shalom Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 11:40 AM To: Feldman, Yulik Cc: sv-bc@server.eda.org Subject: RE: [sv-bc] confusion in determining the type of an self determined binary expression during evalution of type operator 7.4.6 defines 'part-select' and 'slice'. 11.5.1 defines 'bit-select' and 'part-select'. 11.5.3 defines 'field select' and 'indexing select'. 11.5.3 uses 'array select', but that is not used elsewhere. Table 10-1 use 'Array element select' but 'element select' is not used elsewhere. 'member select' is not used anywhere. 9.2.2.1 uses 'select expression'. 11.5.3 uses 'select'. Shalom [Yulik] The problem here is that the LRM is very confusing on the definition of the related terminology. I have tried to raise this issue in the past, but it didn't get much attention. The end result is that I and all my colleagues just use the "part select" term as a universal term describing any kind of "select"/"slice"/"part select"/"bit select"/"member select", even that we know that strictly speaking LRM assigns some other mysterious meaning to this term. It looks that you're using the term "select" for such a universal meaning; but I don't think LRM clearly defines it as such either. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Sat Oct 20 12:38:23 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Oct 20 2007 - 12:38:46 PDT