>From: Michael Burns <michael.burns@freescale.com> > >Second, it has come to my attention (from a discussion with Rob Slater) that the >new program block semantics proposal as it is now may have a backwards >compatibility issue as well. The new proposal definitely breaks backwards compatibility. For example, it changes the behavior of a delay in a module task called from a program. By the 2005 standard, the task would wake up in the active region. By the new proposal it would wake up in the reactive region. This is not backwards compatible. Steven Sharp sharp@cadence.comReceived on Thu Dec 14 15:42:33 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Dec 14 2006 - 15:43:10 PST