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

From the highlighting of the text in #291 proposal it looks like the change
from assignment compatibility to type equivalence is being made as part of
#291, but when I went back and reviewed the #111 change, this change was
already made in #111, so the highlighting is misleading as to what is being
changed in #291.

I have no objections to the changes that are actually being made in #291.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Warmke, Doug [mailto:doug_warmke@mentorg.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 7:27 PM
> To: Mark Hartoog; Maidment, Matthew R; sv-bc@eda.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-bc] E-mail Vote: Closes 12am PST Nov 17
>
>
>
> Mark,
>
> I would like to make some comments on this vote against #291.
>
> The elements of #291's proposal that you disagree with have already
> been passed by the committee in SV-BC #111. The SV-BC has not
> backtracked on that proposal since the vote was registered.
> If you can find a contradictory proposal that was passed subce
> that time, that would be valuable for everyone to know about(!)
>
> #291's unique contribution is to nail down a precise definition for the
> term "corresponding array elements". The text of #291 simply gathers
> up
> #111's approved changes and merges them together with new changes made
> in the same sections. So we are not actually voting on #111 again.
> Rather, we are voting on a precisely defining the meaning of
> "corresponding array elements".
>
> Recall, the intention of #111 is to make sure that implicit casts and
> explicit casts (not just bitstream casts) always yield the same results
> under all legal use circumstances.
>
> You seem to have raised some interesting points regarding bitstream
> casting which I think would be of benefit to discuss. These could
> possibly
> become the source of a separate erratum. But I would appreciate it if
> we
> could pass #291 based on its value for clarifying assignment order, and
> then deal with bitstream casting separately.
>
> Thanks!
> Doug
>
> > 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.
> >
Received on Wed, 17 Nov 2004 16:13:19 -0800