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