Re: [sv-bc] Mantis 1573

It may also be possible that warnings are issued even
for an implementation that does collapse just to make
sure that the user is aware of "against the mode" use.
Such "coercion" warnings would not be real in the sense
of impacting behavior but could be useful for the end
user in diagnosing unexpected use.  More like a lint
effect than anything real.

Gord.


Steven Sharp wrote:
>> From: "Bresticker, Shalom" <shalom.bresticker@intel.com>
> 
>>> BTW, while I do know of implementations that do port coercion 
>>> and others that do collapsing, I don't know of any that don't 
>>> do either.  There are good reasons for that -- the real 
>>> behavior becomes pretty strange and not acceptable to 
>>> customers.  So I wouldn't belabor the "if neither occurs" 
>>> case since I really don't think you could ever get a useful 
>>> implementation if you didn't do either.
>> According to that, you could never get the warning? But I have seen it.
> 
> In other words, you have seen an implementation that did not do either
> in some cases, and gave you a warning that the behavior might cause
> problems.  I would be curious if it really did a full analysis of whether
> the port direction was wrong, a limited local analysis, or rather blindly.
> Without a full analysis, I would expect a lot of false warnings, which
> would then start being ignored.
> 
> I would also be surprised if this is a successful commercial tool, for
> the same reasons Gord describes.
> 
> Steven Sharp
> sharp@cadence.com
> 
> 

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Vreugdenhil                                503-685-0808
Model Technology (Mentor Graphics)                gordonv@model.com


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