From: Anders Nordstrom (andersn@bcarsb82)
Date: Tue Sep 02 1997 - 09:48:20 PDT
Behavioral Task Force - Errata Submission
Assigned Enhancement Request Number: BE42
Errata Name (Description): Signed & Unsigned Keywords
Section: Annex B
Date Submitted: 970517
Requestor: Jayaram Bhasker
Status: Submitted (priority not yet assigned)
Errors found in the Verilog LRM (IEEE 1364-1995).
Details:
Hi,
Here are some more errors I found in P1364 draft spec:
1. In Annex B, pg B-1, the keywords "signed" and "unsigned" are present. But
these keywords are NOT part of the grammar and therefore must be deleted.
- J. Bhasker, Lucent Technologies, jb7@mhcnet.att.com
<p><p>>>|
>>|> 1. In Annex B, pg B-1, the keywords "signed" and "unsigned" are present. But
>>|> these keywords are NOT part of the grammar and therefore must be deleted.
>>|
>>| ...
>>|time the definition of the behaviour. It was recognized that at some
>>|later date this behaviour may be included, and it was also recognized
>>|that not reserving these words at this time would allow more models
>>|and libraries to be written that used these names as symbols, which
>>| ...
What would be the value of affixing these words to the language
itself, rather than providing, in the standard, for means to
extend the language to include or exclude them, at the user's choice?
I am thinking of the somewhat object-oriented approach of PACKAGE-ing,
as is used in VHDL and other languages.
Without getting too RISCy, out on a limb, I'd like to see the language
burden on the designer minimized, with the potential of the language,
as a design tool, maximized.
John
(jwill@neosho)
<p><p>In article <4q3un7$iiq@nntpa.cb.att.com> Jayaram_Bhasker <jb7@mhcnet.att.com> writes:
> Hi,
> Here are some more errors I found in P1364 draft spec:
> 1. In Annex B, pg B-1, the keywords "signed" and "unsigned" are present. But
> these keywords are NOT part of the grammar and therefore must be deleted.
My recollection is that we kept these as reserved words, but did not
define their place in the grammar; certain implementations
(Cadence-XL) do define a meaning to for these keywords, however their
sponser did not elect to press for inclusion in the Standard at this
time the definition of the behaviour. It was recognized that at some
later date this behaviour may be included, and it was also recognized
that not reserving these words at this time would allow more models
and libraries to be written that used these names as symbols, which
would aggravate later definition of these symbols as keywords.
-mac
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4
: Mon Jul 08 2002 - 12:54:41 PDT
and
sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.