Add BigInt / Int to Bool conversion (0.B, 1.B)

[ducky64]

I think there are cases where it's cleaner to use 0.B and 1.B instead of false.B and true.B, especially as testers is going to use chisel literals.

(the use case is in testing interface code, where signal levels are usually specified as 0 and 1 instead of false and true)

Type of change: other enhancement

Impact: API addition (no impact on existing code)

Development Phase: proposal, implementation

Release Notes

[edwardcwang]

Doesn't this mean 2.B will be a runtime error as opposed to a compile-time error?

[ducky64]

Yeah. It would be nice if there was a way to make that type-safe, but there's a trade-off between syntax and error type in this implementation. We can discuss at the meeting today.

Macros might be able to detect something like 2.B at compile time, though I don't think it's possible to do that in general with variables (though I also can't think of when you would want to do an Int-to-Bool conversion on a variable).

[aswaterman]

No objections here. I don’t think it’s especially problematic that 2.B is a runtime error.

[seldridge]

retest this please

[chick]

The implementation looks good to me.

[jackkoenig]

Looks good except I think it could use a better error message

[jackkoenig]

I would provide an explicit message so that people who try 3.B get something more than requirement failed