Johnathan, > > 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? [SB] Now I'm really unsure. In some other places, the phrase "treated as unsigned" is used. But that would mean that it is zero-extended, not sign-extended. > > 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"? [SB] This is actually not so today. In 1364-2005, most of the warnings mentioned there are mandatory, but two are optional ("can be issued"). However, in 1800-2005, many more optional warnings are mentioned, more than 10. Shalom -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Thu Mar 15 09:06:50 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Mar 15 2007 - 09:06:59 PDT