RE: [sv-ec] RE: negative delays

From: Bresticker, Shalom <shalom.bresticker_at_.....>
Date: Thu Mar 15 2007 - 09:05:53 PDT
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