Re: behavioral vs post-P&R simulation mismatch
- From: "tullio" <tullio.grassi@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 31 Aug 2006 08:23:30 -0700
KJ ha scritto:
"tullio" <tullio.grassi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1156946690.228935.57540@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I found the problem, it was actually in the signed logic.<snip>
PS: Xilinx should give a bonus to users for finding their bugs...
Plus I could not find good guidlines on how XST interpret signed logic.
Opening a service request to Xilinx would be a good first step. Even now
that you 'know' the solution, Xilinx doesn't know about it until you let
them know through some mechanism.
KJ
yes i mentioned to a xilinx support guy.
Anyway I went on to test the compatibility with the Verilog standard of
ISE and ModelSim of other signed syntax. I found another violation of
XST. If you do:
output reg [10:0] UregU;
....
UregU <= $unsigned(-4);
// 11111111100 behav with ModelSim, correct;
// 00000000100 post-PAR (XST violates IEEE P1364-2005/D3)
.
- References:
- behavioral vs post-P&R simulation mismatch
- From: tullio
- Re: behavioral vs post-P&R simulation mismatch
- From: Andreas Ehliar
- Re: behavioral vs post-P&R simulation mismatch
- From: tullio
- Re: behavioral vs post-P&R simulation mismatch
- From: KJ
- behavioral vs post-P&R simulation mismatch
- Prev by Date: easics - crc equations
- Next by Date: PCI/PCI-X IDSEL
- Previous by thread: Re: behavioral vs post-P&R simulation mismatch
- Next by thread: Xilinx - one secret less, or how to use the PMV primitive
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|