Hi, Greg, Ooops. Sorry. I meant 2380. The one that relaxes the assignment compatibility definition for packed elements of unpacked arrays - going from equivalent to assignment compatible. [SB] For the record, as Jonathan pointed out, 1447 was the change that relaxed that requirement, possibly inadvertently, after 1800 had strengthened it from SV 3.1a. I was thinking of 1364-2005 section 5.6, which says: 5.6 Assignments and truncation If the width of the right-hand expression is larger than the width of the left-hand side in an assignment, the MSBs of the right-hand expression will always be discarded to match the size of the left-hand side. Implementations are not required to warn or report any errors related to assignment size mismatch or truncation. Truncating the sign bit of a signed expression may change the sign of the result. [SB] Thanks, I missed that. P1800-2009 modifies that statement to say, "Implementations can, but are not required to, warn or report any errors related to assignment size mismatch or truncation." I suppose I'm exaggerating to say that "not required to warn" encourages vendors to offer a warning. I still think 1364 planted this seed of an idea. Would the assignment compatibility change (2380) be more palatable if a warning about size (or bit value) change was required? [SB] I would strongly oppose that. (You see? I'm not blindly in favor of warnings...) Thanks, Shalom --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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, and is believed to be clean.Received on Wed Jun 3 22:56:26 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jun 03 2009 - 22:58:59 PDT