RE: [sv-ec] RE: negative delays

From: Jonathan Bromley <jonathan.bromley_at_.....>
Date: Thu Mar 15 2007 - 08:50:24 PDT
Shalom,

> It's not clear from the wording 
[of 1364-2005 clause 9.7.1]
> that it is first sign-extended to 64
> bits and then treated as unsigned. I'm not arguing with the intent. I
> just think the wording is foggy.

I agree, but it wouldn't be hard to fix, would it?

I was hoping to make a proposal (in Mantis 1739) that such 
use of negative delay should yield a non-fatal error from the 
tool, but in a different context it became clear that such 
recommendations about non-fatal messages have no place in
the LRM; tools are free to add value in that way if they 
choose.  So I've stopped worrying about it.  I guess 1739
should be closed; is there a bug status "reporter ran out
of stamina"?
-- 
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 Thu Mar 15 08:50:55 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Mar 15 2007 - 08:51:02 PDT