If an "addressBlock" is declared with "usage" set to "memory" and if the "access" is set to "read-only" and if inside this "addressBlock" a "virtual register" is declared, then there is the error message “Access cannot be set in register …”.
This happens if the "virtual register" has no setting for "usage" (since thie higher-layer setting from the "addressBlock" would override it anyway).
If the "usage" of the "addressBlock" is changed to "register", then the "virtual register" changes to be a "register" and the error message disappers. If "access" of the memory is changed to "read-write", there there is also no error message.
The error message can be observed in Kactus 3.14.0, but did exist in 3.8.0 as well.
To my understanding, a read-only memory with virtual registers inside is valid and should not lead to this error message. (It seems to be a bug in Kactus2.)
If an "addressBlock" is declared with "usage" set to "memory" and if the "access" is set to "read-only" and if inside this "addressBlock" a "virtual register" is declared, then there is the error message “Access cannot be set in register …”.
This happens if the "virtual register" has no setting for "usage" (since thie higher-layer setting from the "addressBlock" would override it anyway).
If the "usage" of the "addressBlock" is changed to "register", then the "virtual register" changes to be a "register" and the error message disappers. If "access" of the memory is changed to "read-write", there there is also no error message.
The error message can be observed in Kactus 3.14.0, but did exist in 3.8.0 as well.
To my understanding, a read-only memory with virtual registers inside is valid and should not lead to this error message. (It seems to be a bug in Kactus2.)