A
antonio bergnoli
Guest
I'm looking for a good starting point to study vhdl 2002 (protected
types ...) . Does anyboby has any experences?
types ...) . Does anyboby has any experences?
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
J
john Doef
Guest
antonio bergnoli a écrit :
Given that protected types won't be supported by synthetizer, this new
feature is almost useless.
Very very few people use or like shared variables too.
IMHO this is a feature to be forgotten.
The other vhdl 2002 features are transparent for users: the improved
default binding rule was
already present in most tool.
JD.
I'm looking for a good starting point to study vhdl 2002 (protected
types ...) . Does anyboby has any experences?
I tried a few examples.
Given that protected types won't be supported by synthetizer, this new
feature is almost useless.
Very very few people use or like shared variables too.
IMHO this is a feature to be forgotten.
The other vhdl 2002 features are transparent for users: the improved
default binding rule was
already present in most tool.
JD.
R
reuven
Guest
antonio bergnoli wrote:
in synthesis, they are very useful in testbenches and in modeling
abstract data types like linked lists. Linked lists can be used to
model non-synthesisizable "sparse memories" and FIFO's.
regards,
Keep investigating protected types. While shared variables are not usedI'm looking for a good starting point to study vhdl 2002 (protected
types ...) . Does anyboby has any experences?
in synthesis, they are very useful in testbenches and in modeling
abstract data types like linked lists. Linked lists can be used to
model non-synthesisizable "sparse memories" and FIFO's.
regards,
A
antonio bergnoli
Guest
reuven ha scritto:
ok, but where could i study it?antonio bergnoli wrote:
I'm looking for a good starting point to study vhdl 2002 (protected
types ...) . Does anyboby has any experences?
Keep investigating protected types. While shared variables are not used
in synthesis, they are very useful in testbenches and in modeling
abstract data types like linked lists. Linked lists can be used to
model non-synthesisizable "sparse memories" and FIFO's.
regards,
R
Robert Reutemann
Guest
john Doef wrote:
'5-minute-exercise' (you just nead read and write access
functions to an array).
The current edition of Ashenden's Designer's Guide has
enough info on this to use it.
things, the protected types provide a "natural", simple, straightforward
approach. For verification and high-level modelling, such
features are urgently needed, if VHDL is to be used there.
VHDL has many other constructs which are (sometimes just due
to arbitrary limitations of the tools) not synthesizeable, but
are valuable nevertheless.
Modelling the core of a memory with those types is aantonio bergnoli a écrit :
I'm looking for a good starting point to study vhdl 2002 (protected
types ...) . Does anyboby has any experences?
'5-minute-exercise' (you just nead read and write access
functions to an array).
The current edition of Ashenden's Designer's Guide has
enough info on this to use it.
Not quite, in my opinion. For modelling large memories and similarI tried a few examples.
Given that protected types won't be supported by synthetizer, this new
feature is almost useless.
Very very few people use or like shared variables too.
IMHO this is a feature to be forgotten.
things, the protected types provide a "natural", simple, straightforward
approach. For verification and high-level modelling, such
features are urgently needed, if VHDL is to be used there.
VHDL has many other constructs which are (sometimes just due
to arbitrary limitations of the tools) not synthesizeable, but
are valuable nevertheless.
RobertThe other vhdl 2002 features are transparent for users: the improved
default binding rule was
already present in most tool.
JD.
J
john Doef
Guest
Robert Reutemann a écrit :
JD.
Hash table and linked list do the job well.john Doef wrote:
antonio bergnoli a écrit :
I'm looking for a good starting point to study vhdl 2002 (protected
types ...) . Does anyboby has any experences?
Modelling the core of a memory with those types is a
'5-minute-exercise' (you just nead read and write access
functions to an array).
The current edition of Ashenden's Designer's Guide has
enough info on this to use it.
I tried a few examples.
Given that protected types won't be supported by synthetizer, this new
feature is almost useless.
Very very few people use or like shared variables too.
IMHO this is a feature to be forgotten.
Not quite, in my opinion. For modelling large memories and similar
things, the protected types provide a "natural", simple, straightforward
approach. For verification and high-level modelling, such
features are urgently needed, if VHDL is to be used there.
Why do you need protected type for that ?
JD.
R
Robert Reutemann
Guest
john Doef wrote:
processes accesing the array (e.g. separate read/write, ...),
and I want to use a variable to avoid the overhead,
so I need a shared variable, and protected types provide
a clean way to access those from multiple processes without
having to explicitly care about possible conflicts.
Certainly not *the* solution in all cases, but one nice
solution in some cases, which is reason enough for me.
Robert
Because at least sometimes I want to have multipleRobert Reutemann a écrit :
john Doef wrote:
antonio bergnoli a écrit :
I'm looking for a good starting point to study vhdl 2002 (protected
types ...) . Does anyboby has any experences?
Modelling the core of a memory with those types is a
'5-minute-exercise' (you just nead read and write access
functions to an array).
The current edition of Ashenden's Designer's Guide has
enough info on this to use it.
I tried a few examples.
Given that protected types won't be supported by synthetizer, this new
feature is almost useless.
Very very few people use or like shared variables too.
IMHO this is a feature to be forgotten.
Not quite, in my opinion. For modelling large memories and similar
things, the protected types provide a "natural", simple, straightforward
approach. For verification and high-level modelling, such
features are urgently needed, if VHDL is to be used there.
Why do you need protected type for that ?
Hash table and linked list do the job well.
processes accesing the array (e.g. separate read/write, ...),
and I want to use a variable to avoid the overhead,
so I need a shared variable, and protected types provide
a clean way to access those from multiple processes without
having to explicitly care about possible conflicts.
Certainly not *the* solution in all cases, but one nice
solution in some cases, which is reason enough for me.
Robert
M
Mike Treseler
Guest
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
antonio bergnoli wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFEs9pt536xjD3WmocRAsi5AJ9+C7Wnr0k7dxLfJiS3vZzcgEwTYACfcvAu
tDvW75NqpNxRhAcTMsD9juY=
=lnmM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hash: SHA1
antonio bergnoli wrote:
http://users.aol.com/hdlfaq/vhdl2001-foils.pdfok, but where could i study it?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFEs9pt536xjD3WmocRAsi5AJ9+C7Wnr0k7dxLfJiS3vZzcgEwTYACfcvAu
tDvW75NqpNxRhAcTMsD9juY=
=lnmM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
J
john Doef
Guest
Robert Reutemann a écrit :
[...]
[...]
do multiple accesses ?Why do you need protected type for that ?
Hash table and linked list do the job well.
Because at least sometimes I want to have multiple
processes accesing the array (e.g. separate read/write, ...),
and I want to use a variable to avoid the overhead,
so I need a shared variable, and protected types provide
a clean way to access those from multiple processes without
having to explicitly care about possible conflicts.
Just to understand: what's prevent you from using only one process to
Certainly not *the* solution in all cases, but one nice
solution in some cases, which is reason enough for me.
Robert