From: Stefen Boyd (email@example.com)
Date: Mon Dec 01 2003 - 11:50:01 PST
The following reply was made to PR errata/227; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Stefen Boyd <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Re: errata/227: task/function port lists and internal block
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 11:49:59 -0800
forwarded from "Jayaram Bhasker" <JBhasker@eSilicon.com>:
>Just a suggestion:
> >> be ANSI C-like, or they can be the old type. If ANSI C-like, then they
>There should be a better name than "ANSI C-like" since it is not. How about
>"port inline declaration style"? The "old type" can be called "port list
>J. Bhasker, eSilicon Corp
>1605 N. Cedar Crest Blvd, Ste 615, Allentown, PA 18104
>email@example.com, 610.439.6831, 610.770.9634(fax)
>From: James A. Markevitch [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 8:10 PM
>Subject: errata/227: Re: errata/227: task/function port lists and
>internal block item declarations
>The following reply was made to PR errata/227; it has been noted by GNATS.
>From: "James A. Markevitch" <email@example.com>
>Subject: Re: errata/227: task/function port lists and internal block item
>Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:10:50 -0800 (PST)
> The comments below are intended to discuss legal syntax. Once that has
> been generally agreed upon, I will write the proposed changes to the text.
> > If a task port is declared in a task_port_list, is it legal
> > to also declare it in a block item declaration within the body
> > of the task?
> It is illegal.
> > In 12.3.4, in the context of lists of module port declarations,
> > the LRM says --
> > "Each declared port provides the complete information about
> > the port. The port s direction, width, net, or variable type,
> > and whether the port is signed or unsigned is completely
> > described."
> > so it should be an illegal redeclaration of such a port to declare
> > it again in a block item declaration. (Is that a correct interpretation?)
> > Does that also apply to lists of function ports and task ports?
> > If so, where is that stated in the standard? If not, what is
> > the motivation for the difference?
> Yes, task/function port declarations should have the same rules applied
> to them as module port declarations. In particular, they can either
> be ANSI C-like, or they can be the old type. If ANSI C-like, then they
> cannot be redeclared in a block item declaration.
> > -- Brad
> James Markevitch
Stefen Boyd Boyd Technology, Inc.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4
: Mon Dec 01 2003 - 13:33:26 PST
sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.