Hi, The subject was already discussed once (http://www.eda-stds.org/sv-bc/hm/4326.html), but the discussion seems to be incomplete. I still have the following concerns: 1. The original thread says: "We also noted that the LRM allows enums as members of packed structs". This is not fully accurate. Looking on section 4.11 "Structures and unions", I see: "Noninteger data types, such as real and shortreal, are not allowed in packed structures or unions". However, enum is arguably a "noninteger" type. Enum is an integral type, but not an integer type (according to 4.3 "Integer data types"). So, if the intention is that enums are allowed as members of packed structs, this should be clarified. 2. The original thread also raised the question of whether the LRM should allow enums as elements of packed arrays. At present, they seem to be disallowed as per section 5.2 "Packed and unpacked arrays": "Packed arrays can be made of only the single bit data types (bit, logic, reg) and recursively other packed arrays and packed structures". Looking at the thread, no substantial arguments were raised as to why the enums should be disallowed as elements of packed arrays. However, the discussion didn't result in an action item. 3. Related to both enums in packed structs and enums in packed arrays, if both or only of one them is allowed or should be allowed, there is a seemingly not previously discussed ambiguity related to the definition of type equivalence and assignment compatibility of such types. According to 6.9.2 "Equivalent types", "Packed arrays, packed structures, packed unions, 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" and according to 6.9.3 "Assignment compatible", "All equivalent types, and all nonequivalent types that have implicit casting rules defined between them, are assignment-compatible types". So a packed struct/array containing an enum would be equivalent and assignment compatible to other "appropriate" packed types. However, this raises at least two concerns: a. Simple enums (not parts of arrays/structs) are not equivalent to other types. Having enums in packed arrays/structs being considered equivalent to other types will be inconsistent and will create a precedent. b. Assignment compatibility of enums is in one direction only (due to implicit casting rules defined only in one direction). Whether the enums in arrays/structs are equivalent to other types or not, there is some missing language as to how the assignment compatibility of such types is defined. Intuitively, one may want to define it in terms of going recursively over all array elements/struct members and applying corresponding implicit casting rules to the corresponding parts of the other type, but this is complicated enough to be left to the imagination of the reader. Thanks, Yulik.Received on Tue Sep 12 00:35:15 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Sep 12 2006 - 00:35:43 PDT