Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Add support for unpacked structs #4180

Draft
wants to merge 10 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Draft

Conversation

daglem
Copy link
Contributor

@daglem daglem commented Feb 2, 2024

Add support for unpacked structs

@daglem
Copy link
Contributor Author

daglem commented Feb 2, 2024

To be rebased against master after merge of #4100.

@daglem daglem changed the title Unpacked structs Add support for unpacked structs Feb 3, 2024
@daglem daglem force-pushed the unpacked-structs branch from acecd81 to eb4b6c6 Compare March 10, 2024 14:36
@daglem
Copy link
Contributor Author

daglem commented Mar 10, 2024

To be rebased against master after merge of #3877.

@daglem daglem force-pushed the unpacked-structs branch from eb4b6c6 to 24e64b0 Compare March 15, 2024 17:46
daglem and others added 10 commits September 18, 2024 21:51
nordshift on a net or variable yields generation of muxes instead of shift
circuits for dynamic rvalue indexing, akin to nowrshmsk for lvalue indexing.

To facilitate this, the AST transformations for rvalue indexing are moved
from genrtlil.cc to simplify.cc, bringing them in line with transformations
for lvalue indexing.
… AST_SHIFTX

AST_CAST_SIZE on the right operand caused an unsigned operand to be signed.

This is corrected by handling the right operand like in AST_POW.
This also corrects the calculation of bit widths, using the new
function min_bit_width.
Unpacked structs/unions may now be declared, and can contain members
with unpacked dimensions.

This is just syntactic sugar; unpacked structs/unions are handled
as if they were packed.

Note that arrays of structs/unions are still not supported.
@daglem
Copy link
Contributor Author

daglem commented Sep 19, 2024

Can anyone with access to Verific identify which line(s) in tests/svtypes/struct_sizebits_2.sv must be commented out for the tests to pass with Verific?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants