errata/486: 12.3.3: Implicit nets are not necessarily unsigned

From: Brad Pierce (Brad.Pierce@synopsys.com)
Date: Mon Sep 22 2003 - 12:06:56 PDT

  • Next message: Steven Sharp: "Re: errata/486: 12.3.3: Implicit nets are not necessarily unsigned"

    Precedence: bulk

    >Number: 486
    >Category: errata
    >Originator: "Brad Pierce" <Brad.Pierce@synopsys.com>
    >Environment:
    >Description:

    According to 12.3.3, "Implicit nets shall be considered unsigned.",
    but the comments in the example below it (and common sense) contradict
    that.

        input signed [7:0] d; // no explicit net declaration -- net is signed

    And I don't know what this sentence means --

        "Nets connected to ports without and explicit net declaration shall
         be considered unsigned, unless the port is declared as signed."

    Why would it effect the signedness of nets to be connected to a port?

    -- Brad

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Sep 22 2003 - 11:22:37 PDT and
    sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.