Re: [sv-bc] value parameter types

Gordon Vreugdenhil wrote:
> 
> Mantis 1685 and 1618 get at some of this; 1618 deals with
> "string" in particular.
> 
> Some of this will touch on exactly what level of "compatibility"
> between 1364 and 1800 we want.  For example, my suggestion in
> 1618 is to have an untyped parameter adopt the SV type "string"
> when overridden by a string literal.  However in 1364 such an
> override causes the parameter to be a "reg" type of the
> appropriate width.

If an untyped parameter adopts the string type when overridden
by a string literal, then null characters (\0) will be removed
from the string literal.  If it is a reg type, then the \0 will
be preserved.

I thought someone had told me that you had to declare the type
of the parameter for the new SV types, but I can't find the
message.

-Geoffrey

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