Thanks! The dummy signal is good for both tools. On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 11:24 PM, David Koontz <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 13/01/2015, at 9:37 am, Tristan Gingold <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Indeed, GHDL is correct. See LRM93 4.3.2.2 Association lists: > > > > Furthermore, every scalar subelement of the explicitly declared > interface object must be associated exactly once with an actual (or > subelement thereof) in the same association list, and all such associations > must appear in a contiguous sequence within that association list. > > > > So, the only way for GHDL to compile it is first to fix it, using eg a > > dummy signal. > > And right before the NOTES in 4.3.2.2: > > It is an error if an actual of open is associated with a formal that is > associated individually. An actual of open counts as the single association > allowed for the corresponding formal but does not supply a constant, > signal, or variable (as is appropriate to the object class of the formal) > to the formal. > > -- > > So you can't use an open association with the remaining subelement of the > formal. And that paragraph is also found in -2008, 6.5.7.1 so you can't > point to differences in the standard in support of different behavior by > various tools. > > And there are two ways to supply a dummy, expanding the actual to contain > more elements than are used or use a separate dummy signal that is > associated with the individual formal subelement: > > oData(8) => dummy(i), > oData(7 downto 0) => HRDATA(8 * i + 7 downto 8 * i), > > And that is acceptable to ghdl, while not requiring selection when the > data is actually used. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ghdl-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/ghdl-discuss >
_______________________________________________ Ghdl-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/ghdl-discuss
