I know the standard requires 32 bit signed integer range, but does not restrict vendors from supplying larger ranges. However extending the range of "integer" may break existing code. Is there any consideration to a new data type which would be largerintegers? Then the usages would be independent and not subject to breaking existing code.
On Tuesday, September 29, 2020 at 12:03:42 PM UTC-4, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:larger integers? Then the usages would be independent and not subject to breaking existing code.
I know the standard requires 32 bit signed integer range, but does not restrict vendors from supplying larger ranges. However extending the range of "integer" may break existing code. Is there any consideration to a new data type which would be
Larger integers were added to VHDL-2019
On Thursday, October 1, 2020 at 6:39:42 AM UTC-4, KJ wrote:larger integers? Then the usages would be independent and not subject to breaking existing code.
On Tuesday, September 29, 2020 at 12:03:42 PM UTC-4, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
I know the standard requires 32 bit signed integer range, but does not restrict vendors from supplying larger ranges. However extending the range of "integer" may break existing code. Is there any consideration to a new data type which would be
Larger integers were added to VHDL-2019
Specifically, VHDL-2019 defines...
The range of INTEGER is implementation dependent and shall include the range –(2^63) to (2^63)–1 inclusive.
Kevin Jennings
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 296 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 62:21:52 |
Calls: | 6,654 |
Files: | 12,200 |
Messages: | 5,331,626 |