[sv-bc] RE: areas of implementation divergence

I think this is in a slightly different category.  The LRM is clear that this is not allowed, so this is not ill-defined.

There may be divergence because some implementations have chosen to support non-standard extensions to the LRM.  Some of those could be considered to be the "fault" of the LRM, for being unnecessarily restrictive or inconsistent.  But it still isn't the same as the language being ill-defined by the LRM.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-ec@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org] On Behalf Of Seligman, Erik
Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 1:36 PM
To: Maidment, Matthew R; sv-bc@eda.org; sv-ec@eda.org
Subject: [sv-ec] RE: areas of implementation divergence

The question of whether a bound [N] is supported in packed array declarations, as in http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=325 , might be an example here.  

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On Behalf Of Maidment, Matthew R
Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 12:03 AM
To: sv-bc@eda.org; sv-ec@eda.org
Subject: [sv-bc] areas of implementation divergence

All.

During discussions about the next PAR, it has been raised several times that there are problematic areas in the language that are causing implementation divergence.  Would some of you please reply to this thread identifying specific areas of the language that are ill-defined and are leading to this divergence?


Thanks.

Matt


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




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




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