[sv-bc] RE: [sv-ac] type operator

The term 'self-determined' is used in different places in the LRM with
different, though related, meanings. We really should clear this up.

Shalom

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org]
> On Behalf Of Brad Pierce
> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 12:46 AM
> To: sv-ac@server.eda.org
> Cc: sv-bc@server.eda.org
> Subject: Re: [sv-ac] type operator
> 
> No, it is the description of 'self-determined expression' that needs
> to
> be fixed or removed.  Bit-widths are not the only aspect of an
> operator's type signature that is affected by context in Verilog.
> 
> For example, in (e1 * e2) the multiplier is not necessarily signed
> when
> e1 and e2 are signed.  It depends on the context.  For example, in (e1
> *
> e2) + 1'b0, the multplier is unsigned, regardless of the signednesses
> of
> e1 and e2.
> 
> -- Brad
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of
> Doron Bustan
> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 2:17 PM
> To: sv-ac@eda.org
> Subject: [sv-ac] type operator
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I took an action item to look at the type operator and see if a
> similar
> definition can be used to determine the type of an expression used as
> an
> actual argument to an un-typed formal argument.
> 
> I do not think that helps. In fact I think that something in the
> definition of the type operator is broken. In 6.23 it says:
> 
> "The type operator applied to an expression shall represent the
> self-determined result type of that expression.
> The expression shall not be evaluated and shall not contain any
> hierarchical references or references to elements of dynamic objects."
> 
> 
> but at11.6.1 it says:
> 
> "A self-determined expression is one where the bit length of the
> expression is solely determined by the expression itself-for example,
> an
> expression representing a delay value."
> 
> meaning, self-determined expression define only the number of bits in
> the expression, not the type.
> Other language at 11.6 implies the same - no specific type may be
> inferred.
> 
> I think that I will remove the $var from the un-typed formal arguments
> in the rewriting algorithm.
> 
> Do you think (like me) that the 'type operator' should be fixed?
> 
> Doron
> 
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by
> MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
> 
> 
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.