Welcome to our site! EDAboard.com is an international Electronics Discussion Forum focused on EDA software, circuits, schematics, books, theory, papers, asic, pld, 8051, DSP, Network, RF, Analog Design, PCB, Service Manuals... and a whole lot more! To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.
Thank you for this point (using a full entry name). I will try it.
Browsing on the net, I found one useful example of components. In board design, a component can represent a socket on the board, an entity is a chip package where chip interface must match the socket interface, and architecture...
The purpose of my question is to understand the language better and may be to find it useful in some cases. So far I see having both entity and component
as absolutely useless, just more typing and elaboration errors that entity is not bound. If it it's only matter of syntax, why not to have a...
But this is perfectly solved by entity/architecture pair: you define your interface in the entity and have different implementations in different architectures.
I'm a long time user of the Verilog, and do not have a lot of experience in VHDL.
So I have a question: why is it advantageous to have a component in VHDL?
Basically, you need to write the same thing twice - as an entity and as a component?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
