Got it. Running Ubuntu 16.04.3 LTS, and I see the bug. Want me to mail you a tarball of the project?
-
-
Replying to @elaforest
Commenting on the forum post to confirm the bug is probably sufficient. A backtrace wouldn't hurt either.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @elaforest
@oe1cxw Do you think this is a Verific bug (based on the backtrace in the post)? IOW, should Verific have caught this and reported the syntax error, or is that on the host app (Vivado)? Not familiar with their API.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @azonenberg @elaforest
I'll test it later today. But Vivado is only using the Verific parser afaik. It has its elaborator. So it might be that this is a Vivado-only bug.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @oe1cxw @elaforest
Pretty sure the segfault is vivado. But should Verific have allowed the bugged AST to get to this point, or should it have thrown an error earlier in the parser?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @azonenberg @elaforest
Verific actually accepts that input file. (Produces no error.) Not sure if that's because I'm running Verific in synthesis mode (where it ignores $display statements).
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @oe1cxw @elaforest
Try initializing an output reg to the function's value or something?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @azonenberg @elaforest
Still accepts itpic.twitter.com/5l4FD8OZhR
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @oe1cxw @elaforest
So, confirmed Vivado elaboration bug then?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Replying to @azonenberg @elaforest
idk. I'd guess it's a verific bug that verific accepts that code, and vivado probably just assumes that it will never get an AST like that from Verific.
11:40 PM - 28 Nov 2017
0 replies
0 retweets
0 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.