Arturo Salz wrote: > Gord, > > I believe the discussion is not restricted to testbench, and > I showed earlier an example of an array declaration that > satisfies the 2^16 limit, but has nonetheless index bounds > that are larger than 32-bits: > > reg [48'hfffffffffff0:48'hfffffffffff3] foo; > > The above is a 4-bit (wide) vector, but the index bounds > are 48-bit wide. I agree with all of you that there are real > practical concerns as well as legacy issues, and I believe that > most implementations will have issues with the above declaration, > and I am unsure whether it is even legal or not. Yup, that is exactly why I said: > Splitting hairs, the above doesn't say that the index *range* > must be bounded by 24 bit values, but preceding text is > certainly consistent with that assumption. If one wants to split hairs about the 24 bit size aspect to say that only the *count* and not the *range* is restricted, then I'm perfectly happy to split the hairs in the preceding text to claim that "integer" is in fact normative to 32 bits for index values. Also as I said, if one wants to intentionally relax the 32 bit assumptions, there is a much deeper scrub necessary and I'm not entirely sure that I'd be willing to support such a change. 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 Fri Apr 3 14:43:41 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Apr 03 2009 - 14:44:25 PDT