You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
For #2 we need to store bit values in an efficient way. We could use bools, which on the FPGA will be represented as bits (which is great), but probably a more explicit approach would be better. Options:
These could be handled by "compiler intrinsics" of the Transformer specifically: instead of actually transforming them an efficient pre-created hardware implementation could be used (similarly how ImmutableArray support works).
Maybe having an instrinsic behaviour for BitMask would actually be the best: have a configurable-sized (as many bits as you wish) signed/unsigned register with support for basic operators like arithmetic, shifting... Would also help #21.
For #2 we need to store bit values in an efficient way. We could use bools, which on the FPGA will be represented as bits (which is great), but probably a more explicit approach would be better. Options:
See: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/352089/why-cant-i-define-a-bit-in-c-sharp
Jira issue
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: