>SVDB 2102 ___Yes _x_No http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2102 > >Version V2, 2007-11-30 > >I am still unhappy with this. I still think it could be interpreted to >say that if there is an unpacked aggregate whose elements are themselves >packed aggregates (such as an array whose elements are n-bit packed >vectors), then only different words can be written in different ways >(one procedurally, one continuously), but not different bits in the same >word. I understood from the discussion that this is not so. The same misinterpretation could have been applied in the existing text, to the situation where there is an unpacked aggregate whose elements are themselves unpacked aggregates. It could be interpreted as meaning that only different elements of the outer type can be written in different ways, but different elements of the inner type cannot. If you don't think that this is the same situation, then you are making a distinction between the inner type being packed versus unpacked. Since the text itself makes no such distinction, I don't see the basis for such a difference in interpretation in one case versus the other. >In particular, the text still contains this example: I agree that the example has become incorrect, and that I need to fix it as part of this proposal. Well spotted. I will take care of that. >I don't think the paragraph should be deleted. Instead, I think the two >paragraphs should be combined, but in a paragraph devoted only to this >subject. I can give this a try. But if a trivial change to existing text that has already been accepted will not be accepted, I despair of getting a significant rewording accepted. Steven Sharp sharp@cadence.com -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Mon Dec 3 10:05:32 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Dec 03 2007 - 10:06:07 PST