Re: [sv-bc] E-mail Vote: Closes 12am PST Nov 17

Mark Hartoog wrote:

> 291 ___Yes _x_No
> http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0000291
> I have no problem with the clarification of the assignment order,
> but on the change from assignment compatible elements to type equivalent
> elements, I am concerned that we have completely changed direction on the
> issues of array assignment and casting several times over the last
> year. The argument is we need to make these changes to be consistent
> with bit stream casting, but I am not convinced that the current
> description of bit stream casting makes sense, particularly
> concerning dynamic types. Consider this case:
>
> typedef struct ( byte a[]; } ST;
> typedef ST TypeA[0:1];
> TypeA a;
> TypeA b;
>
> I think
>
> a = b;
>
> and
> a = TypeA'(b);
>
> do completely different things both with and without this change.

Perhaps their internal workings differ, but the net effect is that
every bit of b winds up in an equivalent position in a. Unless you
think that casting an object to TypeA as another TypeA should alter
some bits? Could you elaborate on your doubts about assignment
compatible vs equivalence here?

Greg
Received on Tue Nov 16 15:53:19 2004