>From: "Stuart Sutherland" <stuart@sutherland-hdl.com> >> SVDB 1004 _X_Yes ___No >> http://www.eda.org/svdb/bug_view_page.php?bug_id=1004 >I am voting yes on the assumption that the conditional operator operand >lengths are self-determined, which seems to be suggested by the rules in >table 11-23 of Draft 3. If my assumption is incorrect, then this proposal >is needs to be changed to reflect that expression context affects whether >the operands are zero extended or sign extended. Stu, Only the condition expression is self-determined. The other two are not. As far as LRM references, 1364-2005 5.4.1 paragraph 2 basically says that expressions are context-determined. The next paragraph describes the special case of self-determined operands. This indicates that an operand is context-determined unless it is specified to be self-determined. The table specifies that the condition is self-determined. It says nothing about the other two operands, so they are context-determined. I won't claim that this part of the LRM is perfectly clear, but the rules for the operands of conditional operators are at least as clear as the ones for other operators. So yes, this proposal needs to be changed to reflect that expression context affects whether the operands are zero extended or sign extended, as well as the width to which it is extended. That is why I opposed it. The simplest way to do this is to reference the relevant section, rather than trying to re-iterate the rules here. Steven Sharp sharp@cadence.com -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Mon Jun 11 13:14:59 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jun 11 2007 - 13:15:26 PDT