I was reading a vendor's code for simulation of their DSP blocks and found this...
use IEEE.STD_LOGIC_UNSIGNED.ALL;
I really don't think I've ever tried to use this library. I assume it actually has to work though, right? The problem is mixing signed and unsigned I believe.
Browsing through the library I noticed what appears to be a unary +. Looking it up I see a web page that says it has no effect. What is this for?
More importantly, should I worry about any issues with the vendor using such an out of date, deprecated library?
On Sunday, December 13, 2020 at 7:52:44 PM UTC-5, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
I was reading a vendor's code for simulation of their DSP blocks and found this...
use IEEE.STD_LOGIC_UNSIGNED.ALL;
OK, but that is in the vendor's code, not yours.
I really don't think I've ever tried to use this library. I assume it actually has to work though, right? The problem is mixing signed and unsigned I believe.
It could be a possible problem for the vendor. Do they mix signed and unsigned? If there simulation models work, do you care?
would you complain about to the vendor?Browsing through the library I noticed what appears to be a unary +. Looking it up I see a web page that says it has no effect. What is this for?
Dunno.
More importantly, should I worry about any issues with the vendor using such an out of date, deprecated library?
Does your testing show a functional problem? Just because the code may be old and not state of the art, doesn't mean that it doesn't work correctly. Even if it is new code, it's still up to the vendor and if it is functionally correct, what exactly
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 286 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 88:17:56 |
Calls: | 6,496 |
Calls today: | 7 |
Files: | 12,100 |
Messages: | 5,277,326 |