RE: [sv-ec] Comments on 890-5.pdf

From: Jonathan Bromley <jonathan.bromley_at_.....>
Date: Mon Feb 12 2007 - 14:36:06 PST
Stuart,

> I agree that the LRM should standardize at least what ## does with a
> negative value.  I also like option (c), treat as unsigned but issue a
> warning.  

I'll raise a Mantis tomorrow unless anyone thinks it's too much of
a distraction.

> Question: Should this only be a run-time warning, 
> or should the warning could be issued at the earliest
> point it can be detected, which
> might be compile, elaboration or run-time, depending on context?

I don't think it's necessary to stipulate that.  Runtime is obviously
essential if it's not been caught previously, but any earlier time
is always a value-add for users and I guess vendors will do that 
if it's practicable.

> Regarding # negative unit delays, I would prefer the standard 
> define the same behavior as ##, but anything we define could
> have far reaching backward compatibility issues, since at least
> two products took a radically different approach...

... which means that there is nothing to be backwards-compatible
with!  I'll raise it on the sv-bc reflector and see what happens.
-- 
Jonathan Bromley, Consultant

DOULOS - Developing Design Know-how
VHDL * Verilog * SystemC * e * Perl * Tcl/Tk * Project Services

Doulos Ltd. Church Hatch, 22 Market Place, Ringwood, Hampshire, BH24 1AW, UK
Tel: +44 (0)1425 471223                   Email: jonathan.bromley@doulos.com
Fax: +44 (0)1425 471573                           Web: http://www.doulos.com

The contents of this message may contain personal views which 
are not the views of Doulos Ltd., unless specifically stated.

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Received on Mon Feb 12 14:36:31 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Feb 12 2007 - 14:36:46 PST