RE: [sv-bc] Sign of a signed packed array of struct

Yes, I saw that 7.2.1 says, "The structures are declared using the packed keyword, which can be followed by the signed or unsigned keyword, according to the desired arithmetic behavior."

I read 7.4.1, "If a packed array is declared as signed, then the array viewed as a single vector shall be signed. The individual elements of the array are unsigned unless they are of a named type declared as signed," as taking priority over or declaring an exception to or supplementing 7.2.1.

Regards,
Shalom

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Graham [mailto:pgraham@oasys-ds.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 3:02 PM
> To: Bresticker, Shalom
> Cc: sv-bc
> Subject: Re: [sv-bc] Sign of a signed packed array of struct
>
> Shalom,
>
> In this example:
>
> struct packed signed { ... } [3:0] S;
>
> it's not clear to me what the lrm says about the sign of the array.
> This example declares both an anonymous struct type and an anonymous
> array type. Is the struct declared as signed, or is the array declared
> as signed, or both? Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but note
> that the syntax above is explicitly given in section 7.2, on
> structures. If the location of this syntax definition is significant,
> this suggests that the struct type is signed and not the array type.
> But I'd prefer an explicit statement from the lrm.
>
> Paul

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.