[sv-bc] RE: Q: [N] array bounds legal for unpacked but not packed arrays?

And the direction of the range is more significant to users for packed dimensions than for unpacked ones.


From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On Behalf Of Bresticker, Shalom
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 4:03 PM
To: Brad Pierce; sv-bc@eda.org
Subject: [sv-bc] RE: Q: [N] array bounds legal for unpacked but not packed arrays?

Dave Rich noted there, "The orginal reason that packed arrays was excluded from this feature was that the order of bits would be the reverse of what most hardware users expect."

From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On Behalf Of Brad Pierce
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 22:57
To: sv-bc@eda.org
Subject: [sv-bc] RE: Q: [N] array bounds legal for unpacked but not packed arrays?

http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=325



--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner<http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
believed to be clean.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner<http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
believed to be clean.

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.