Re: [sv-bc] Re: SV31A LRM interpretation for: unique case


Subject: Re: [sv-bc] Re: SV31A LRM interpretation for: unique case
From: Shalom Bresticker (Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com)
Date: Mon Feb 23 2004 - 03:56:05 PST


Greg Jaxon wrote:

> The intent is that when static analysis cannot decide, runtime checks
> will be inserted.

But that is not what the LRM says.

Shalom

> Whether these signal an error, or warn and then simulate
> "something" is apparently in flux.
>
> Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com wrote:
> > Thanks.
> >
> > I did say that I would probably have more comments after getting answers...
> >
> > I believe that the wording for the "if" and "case" should be almost identical,
> > differing only where required by the differences between "if" and "case".
> > Differing wording invites the reader to ask himself why you used different
> > wording, it must be because there is a difference.
> >
> > Here you have changed the errors to warnings, which I believe is the correct thing to do,
> > but for "if", it still says "error".
> >
> > Note that often a static check is unable to determine absolutely whether a certain
> > condition can occur or not, especially when it depends on the possible input combinations.
> > In that case, it warns, saying that as far as it is concerned, the condition is
> > "possible", but in fact, it may that the condition may not actually be possible in practice.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Shalom

--
Shalom Bresticker                           Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com
Design & Reuse Methodology                             Tel: +972 9 9522268
Motorola Semiconductor Israel, Ltd.                    Fax: +972 9 9522890
POB 2208, Herzlia 46120, ISRAEL                       Cell: +972 50 441478

[x]Motorola General Business Information [ ]Motorola Internal Use Only [ ]Motorola Confidential Proprietary



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Mon Feb 23 2004 - 04:02:50 PST