module alu2bit(aluout,result,zero,one,two,three,four,five
,six,seven,eight,nine,a,b,select);
NET "one" LOC = "F12" | IOSTANDARD = LVTTL | SLEW = SLOW | DRIVE = 8 ;
NET "two" LOC = "E12" | IOSTANDARD = LVTTL | SLEW = SLOW | DRIVE = 8 ;
NET "three" LOC = "E11" | IOSTANDARD = LVTTL | SLEW = SLOW | DRIVE = 8 ;
NET "four" LOC = "F11" | IOSTANDARD = LVTTL | SLEW = SLOW | DRIVE = 8 ;
NET "five" LOC = "C11" | IOSTANDARD = LVTTL | SLEW = SLOW | DRIVE = 8 ;
NET "six" LOC = "D11" | IOSTANDARD = LVTTL | SLEW = SLOW | DRIVE = 8 ;
NET "seven" LOC = "E9" | IOSTANDARD = LVTTL | SLEW = SLOW | DRIVE = 8 ;
NET "eight" LOC = "F9" | IOSTANDARD = LVTTL | SLEW = SLOW | DRIVE = 8 ;
NET "a[0]" LOC = "L13" | IOSTANDARD = LVTTL | PULLUP ; //for a input
NET "a[1]" LOC = "L14" | IOSTANDARD = LVTTL | PULLUP ; //for a input
NET "a<0>" LOC = "L13" | IOSTANDARD = LVTTL | PULLUP ; //for a input
NET "a<1>" LOC = "L14" | IOSTANDARD = LVTTL | PULLUP ; //for a input
I only use VHDL but one thing i see is that you declare one,two...eight as 4 bits length for each one and then you try to assign these 4 bits to a single pin of the chip
Alex
So you think it is not worth the effort to fix the ucf file? I will give you one hint .... ISE error messages are about as helpful as C compiler error messages were 20 years ago. You get one error message, which you should interpret as "20 steps ago something went wrong". I noticed with ISE something similar. So if you /know/ something is wrong with the ucf, fix it! Don't say "oh it is something else", because 1) you are right ... it is something else AS WELL, and 2) aluout etc are missing ... so xilinx ise will bomb out on that as well, so fix that first.
also... I am not certain of the syntax of:
Code:NET "a[0]" LOC = "L13" | IOSTANDARD = LVTTL | PULLUP ; //for a input NET "a[1]" LOC = "L14" | IOSTANDARD = LVTTL | PULLUP ; //for a input
I always use something like:
Code:NET "a<0>" LOC = "L13" | IOSTANDARD = LVTTL | PULLUP ; //for a input NET "a<1>" LOC = "L14" | IOSTANDARD = LVTTL | PULLUP ; //for a input
for that. I.e < instead of [. Again, I am not sure if the first one is wrong (and too lazy to look it up), but I do know for sure that the 2nd syntax is correct.
And I say again, in my experience when the ucf was not 100% tip top correct, xilinx ise would give me all sorts of intriguing error messages. So the hint would be to make sure the .ucf is 100% correct (which currently it is not).
NET "one" LOC = "F12" | IOSTANDARD = LVTTL | SLEW = SLOW | DRIVE = 8 ;
NET "two" LOC = "E12" | IOSTANDARD = LVTTL | SLEW = SLOW | DRIVE = 8 ;
NET "three" LOC = "E11" | IOSTANDARD = LVTTL | SLEW = SLOW | DRIVE = 8 ;
NET "four" LOC = "F11" | IOSTANDARD = LVTTL | SLEW = SLOW | DRIVE = 8 ;
NET "five" LOC = "C11" | IOSTANDARD = LVTTL | SLEW = SLOW | DRIVE = 8 ;
NET "six" LOC = "D11" | IOSTANDARD = LVTTL | SLEW = SLOW | DRIVE = 8 ;
NET "seven" LOC = "E9" | IOSTANDARD = LVTTL | SLEW = SLOW | DRIVE = 8 ;
NET "eight" LOC = "F9" | IOSTANDARD = LVTTL | SLEW = SLOW | DRIVE = 8 ;
Just thought I'd point out that square brackets in the UCF files are also fully valid. That's all I've ever used.
r.b.
Sir i have not changed UCF file
b/c i cannt see any problem in it
i also consulted Spatran manual
reg [3:0] zero,one,two,three,four,five,six,seven,eight,nine;
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?