errata/463: Re: errata/463: Re: errata/463: another sign-extension issue

From: Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com
Date: Sun Nov 16 2003 - 05:20:00 PST

  • Next message: Shalom Bresticker: "errata/463: Re: errata/463: another sign-extension issue"

    The following reply was made to PR errata/463; it has been noted by GNATS.

    From: Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com
    To: Steven Sharp <sharp@cadence.com>
    Cc: etf-bugs@boyd.com
    Subject: Re: errata/463: Re: errata/463: another sign-extension issue
    Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 15:18:31 +0200 (IST)

    > >4.1.10 is not dealt with in any other issue.
    > >However, I had assumed that zero-extension instead of sign-extension is
    > >the correct behavior for the bit-wise operators of 4.1.10.
    >
    > No, the rules in 4.5 should have superceded all of the various mentions
    > of zero-extension left over from the 1995 standard. Unfortunately, 4.5
    > isn't really complete and fails to mention some operators that it should.
    > It needs work.
    >
    > This issue is an example of why I don't like "clarifications" that duplicate
    > information in more than one place in the standard. When something needs to
    > be changed or extended later, some of that duplicate information doesn't get
    > updated.
     
     I agree.
     
     So what is the correct behavior for the bit-wise operators?
     
     
     --
     Shalom Bresticker Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com
     Design & Reuse Methodology Tel: +972 9 9522268
     Motorola Semiconductor Israel, Ltd. Fax: +972 9 9522890
     POB 2208, Herzlia 46120, ISRAEL Cell: +972 50 441478
     

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Nov 16 2003 - 05:20:02 PST and
    sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.