Re: enhancement/287: `compatibility - backward compatibilitycompilerdirectives

From: Shalom.Bresticker@freescale.com
Date: Thu Jun 10 2004 - 08:20:00 PDT

  • Next message: Steven Sharp: "errata/582: another inquiry"

    The following reply was made to PR enhancement/287; it has been noted by GNATS.

    From: Shalom.Bresticker@freescale.com
    To: btf-bugs@boyd.com
    Cc:
    Subject: Re: enhancement/287: `compatibility - backward compatibilitycompilerdirectives
    Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 18:17:35 +0300 (IDT)

     Stuart has already proposed that such a directive be optional.
     
     Another issue is whether the definition of such a directive would
     require from the tool vendor to implement more than a simple enable or
     disable of keywords.
     
     If that were all that were required of the vendor, it would be relatively
     simple to implement. However, if "1364-2001 compatibility" would require
     him to disable any and all features added in later versions of the
     standard, that would be much harder for a vendor to implement, to the
     point of having to write another half-simulator, just to be compatible
     with an older version of the standard. That would seem to be unfairly
     expensive for someone writing a new tool (as opposed to someone extending
     an existing one).
     
     It is true that there are a few things which actually change from one
     version of the standard to the next, as opposed to added extensions,
     such as the use of bit 31 of an MCD, but those cases have been quite few
     and relatively unimportant.
     
     Shalom
     

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Jun 10 2004 - 08:20:22 PDT and
    sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.