RE: [sv-bc] type compatibility for unions?

Françoise,

 

Yes I agree. My suggested change is:

 

Packed structures, packed unions, packed arrays, and built-in integral types are equivalent if...

 

BTW, I talked with Dennis about continuing activities and his recollection is that the PAR was set up so that WG would continue to exist after the draft goes to ballot. So I'm going to assume the sub groups will continue to exist until told otherwise. Therefore I will enter the suggested text into the database (http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=0000383) so we don't lose it.

 

Dave

 

 

________________________________

From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On Behalf Of Francoise Martinolle
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 7:10 PM
To: sv-bc@eda.org
Subject: [sv-bc] type compatibility for unions?

 

The type compatibility description seems to be missing the rules for packed unions.

I think that rule 5 of type equivalence should be talking about packed unions as well:

 

Packed arrays, packed structures, and built-in integral types are equivalent if they contain the same number

of total bits, are either all 2-state or all 4-state, and are either all signed or all unsigned. Note that if any bit of

a packed structure or union is 4-state, the entire structure or union is considered 4-state.