VHDL'87 vs VHDL'93
tig...@my-dejanews.com
Does anyone know where I can get more info on differences between VHDL'87 and
VHDL'93? Which one should I go for? Thanks in advance for any feedback.
Son Huynh
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
me...@mench.com
> Does anyone know where I can get more info on differences between
> VHDL'87 and VHDL'93? Which one should I go for? Thanks in advance
> for any feedback.
Peter Ashenden's book, "A Designer's Guide to VHDL," contains
information about the differences.
Which one you use depends on your tools. If your tools support '93,
use it. Most simulators support '93, but not all synthesis tools do.
Hope this helps,
Paul
--
Paul Menchini | me...@mench.com | "None but a blockhead ever
OrCAD | www.orcad.com | wrote except for money."
P.O. Box 71767 | 919-479-1670[v] | -- Samuel Johnson
Durham, NC 27722-1767 | 919-479-1671[f] |
lesli...@asmpt.com
your synthesizer's manual.
In article <7569fs$ah$1...@mench.mench.com>,
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
lesli...@asmpt.com
your synthesizer's manual.
Leslie Yip
Ehh
The ver 7.0 it isn't better. Be careful.
Riccardo
Ehh
Ehh
Ehh
Ehh
Ehh
Ehh
Ehh
Les Boegemann
product sold today. IEEE 1076-1993 is an enhanced and updated version .
Soon after IEEE 1076-1987 was adopted, simulator companies began enhancing
VHDL with new, non-standard types to allow their customers to accurately
simulate complex electronic circuits. This caused problems because design
descriptions entered into one simulator were often incompatible with other
simulation environments. VHDL was quickly becoming a nonstandard.
To get around the problem of nonstandard data types, another standard was
developed by an IEEE committee. The standard 1164 defines a standard
package containing definitions for a standard non-valued data type.
The IEEE 1076-1987 and IEEE 1164 standards form the complete VHDL standard
in widest use today. (IEEE 1076-1993 is slowly working its way into the VHDL
mainstream, but it does not add significant new features for synthesis
users.)
This information was taken from the book, "VHDL Made Easy" written by David
Pellerin and Douglas Taylor.
tig...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message <7566ki$hpm$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>Hello,
>
>Does anyone know where I can get more info on differences between VHDL'87
and
>VHDL'93? Which one should I go for? Thanks in advance for any feedback.
>
>Son Huynh
e...@riverside-machines.com.nospam
<tt...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>IEEE 1076-1987 is the basis for virtually every simulation and synthesis
>product sold today. IEEE 1076-1993 is an enhanced and updated version .
This isn't the case, and hasn't been for several years. It would be
really useful to have the correct information as a table in the FAQ -
Edwin??
To start with, here's a list of simulators/synthesisers that I
personally have used or tried over the last year or so:
Key:
Support: 87: '87-only support
93: '87 and '93
87+: '87, with some '93 syntax additions
Devpt: Yes => vendor has announced '93 support within next year
No => vendor has not announced '93 support within next year
Type: Sim Simulator
Syn Synthesiser
Vendor Product Version Sim/Syn Support Devp
----------------------------------------------------------
MTI ModelSim 4.7x/5.2x Sim 93
Cadence Leapfrog ? Sim 93
Viewlogic Speedwave ? Sim 87 ?
Metamor Metamor ? Syn 93
Synopsys DC ? Syn 87 Yes
Synopsys FPGA Express 2.1.x Syn 87+ Yes
Exemplar Leonardo 4.2.x Syn 93
Exemplar Spectrum 1998.2 Syn 93
Synplicity Synplify ? Syn 93
Does anyone have any corrections/additions?
Evan
Mike Treseler
> Key:
>
> Support: 87: '87-only support
> 93: '87 and '93
> 87+: '87, with some '93 syntax additions
>
> Devpt: Yes => vendor has announced '93 support within next year
> No => vendor has not announced '93 support within next year
>
> Type: Sim Simulator
> Syn Synthesiser
>
> Vendor Product Version Sim/Syn Support Devp
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> MTI ModelSim 4.7x/5.2x Sim 93
> Cadence Leapfrog ? Sim 93
> Viewlogic Speedwave ? Sim 87 ?
> Metamor Metamor ? Syn 93
> Synopsys DC ? Syn 87 Yes
> Synopsys FPGA Express 2.1.x Syn 87+ Yes
> Exemplar Leonardo 4.2.x Syn 93
> Exemplar Spectrum 1998.2 Syn 93
> Synplicity Synplify ? Syn 93
>
> Does anyone have any corrections/additions?
>
Yes:
Exemplar Galileo 4.2 Syn 93
MTI ModelSimEE 5.1f Sim 93
(aka vsim)
Thanks for your posting.
I think there will be a lot less confusion once everyone
is using the 93 numeric_std functions and conversions.
-Mike Treseler
me...@mench.com
> I think there will be a lot less confusion once everyone is using
> the 93 numeric_std functions and conversions.
Actually, I believe it's possible to support numeric_std without
supporting '93....
Regards,
Edwin Naroska
e...@riverside-machines.com.NOSPAM wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Dec 1998 11:27:37 -0800, "Les Boegemann"
> <tt...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >IEEE 1076-1987 is the basis for virtually every simulation and synthesis
> >product sold today. IEEE 1076-1993 is an enhanced and updated version .
>
> This isn't the case, and hasn't been for several years. It would be
> really useful to have the correct information as a table in the FAQ -
> Edwin??
Good suggestions. I'll add a new entry to the FAQ. Your
list will serve as a good starting point.
Any further suggestions, corrections, comments, ... are
appreciated. So don't hesitate to contact me if anything
else is missing too.....
Edwin
Rickman
> is using the 93 numeric_std functions and conversions.
>
I'm confused!
How does numeric_std fit into the
'87/'93/1164/std_logic_arith/std_logic_unsigned/std_logic_signed
picture?
Unless I have missed something, FPGA Express does not include
numeric_std. }8-!
--
Rick Collins
re...@XYusa.net
remove the XY to email me.
Mike Treseler
> Mike Treseler wrote:
>
> > Thanks for your posting.
> > I think there will be a lot less confusion once everyone
> > is using the 93 numeric_std functions and conversions.
> >
> > -Mike Treseler
>
> I'm confused!
>
> How does numeric_std fit into the
> '87/'93/1164/std_logic_arith/std_logic_unsigned/std_logic_signed
> picture?
With my tools, the '93 extensions and numeric_std supportcame out at the same
time. However, I have been informed
that the two features may be unrelated.
All I know for sure is that my life got much easier when I started
USEing numeric_std instead of the vendor specific arithmetic libraries.
> Unless I have missed something, FPGA Express does not include
> numeric_std. }8-!
If that is true, it is unfortunate.
-Mike Treseler
tr...@tc.fluke.com