Hello,

> On 23 Dec 2013, at 8:40 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> 
> > I think that ghdl is compliant with VHDL 1993 and 2002. That's
> > modulo
> > bugs, but I think that all features are implemented.  If not, do
> > not
> > hesitate to raise issues.
> 
> The issue isn't features (syntax), it's compliance (semantics).
> 
> 
> library ieee;
> use ieee.std_logic_1164.all;
> use ieee.numeric_std.all;
> 
> entity tb_test0 is end;
> 
> architecture arch_tb of tb_test0 is
>    signal i_s : integer := -1;
>    --
>    signal v_s : unsigned(7 downto 0);
> 
> begin
>    -- Here it won't have any error during simulation, but it should
>    v_s <= to_unsigned(i_s, 8);
>    --
> end architecture arch_tb;
> 
> david_koontz@Macbook: ghdl -a tb_test0.vhdl
> david_koontz@Macbook: ghdl -e tb_test0
> david_koontz@Macbook: ghdl -r tb_test0
> david_koontz@Macbook: ghdl --version
> GHDL 0.31dev (20132311) [Dunoon edition]
>  Compiled with GNAT Version: GPL 2013 (20130314)
>  GCC back-end code generator
> Written by Tristan Gingold.
> 
> This is a noncompliant VHDL design description (yet it ran without
> error):

[...]

> And this one of those issues of the category that the standard does
> not convey clearly, the information being spread among multiple
> clauses.
> 
> https://sourceforge.net/p/ghdl-updates/tickets/4/
> Subtype compatibility check of an implicitly converted universal
> integer not performed during dynamic elaboration

This issue has just been fixed.

> I find these using ghdl as a reference when checking other VHDL
> tools.  I'll dig around I might have 3 or 4 more stuck in mailboxes.
>  All in all ghdl acquits itself quite favourably.


Interesting. Let us know about that.

Tristan.
 
> There's also around 190 compliant test cases that fail and some
> number of non-compliant tests cases that also fail.  And every last
> one of them needs a bout of VHDL lawyering to determine the validity
> of the test cases and results.  (Although those with access to say
> Modelsim can usually at least tell whether something should fail or
> not, just not why without the research).

_______________________________________________
Ghdl-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/ghdl-discuss

Reply via email to