Quoting Thomas Sailer <[email protected]>: > A relatively longstanding issue is that some of the math_real functions > provided by ghdl use a nonstandard function name. I got annoyed by > having to maintain two different versions of my testbenches for ghdl and > another simulator, so I wrote a two patches to make math_real more > standards compliant.
Thank you for working on this issue. > ieee-mathreal-nocompat.patch just renames the functions. It will break > code that relies on the ghdl function names. > > ieee-mathreal.patch also contains backward compatible functions that > warn once that they will disappear in the future. However, to implement > the warn once feature, these functions had to be marked impure, which > breaks existing code that relies on these functions being pure. > > Comments? > > I'd really like to see ghdl moving towards standards compliant function > names... I will have a look on these patches. The current situation is: * official math vhdl sources cannot be distributed freely (but you can get it from the web) * an early draft is available (the one provided with ghdl) but the final draft is somewhat different. > And now for something different: > > $ ghdl -a t.vhd > t.vhd:13:14:warning: universal integer bound must be numeric literal or > attribute > > This warning seems totally bogus, the bounds _are_ numeric literals. > What's wrong here? Well -10 is not a numeric literal. The warning is correct but the vhdl standard is crazy on this point! > Also, to compile ghdl on ppc64, I had to use the hack in > ghdl-ppc64abort.patch. Is there a better solution? Looks not bad. Tristan. _______________________________________________ Ghdl-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/ghdl-discuss
