Possible bug in spec of relaxeddotmul

[rossberg]

The spec defines:

   \EXPROFDET & \relaxeddotmul_{M,N}(i_1, i_2) &=& [ \imul_N(\signed_M(i_1), i_2), \imul_N(\signed_M(i_1), \signed_M(i_2)) ] \\
   & \relaxeddotmul_{M,N}(i_1, i_2) &=& \imul_N(\extends_{M,N}(i_1), \extends_{M,N}(i_2)) \\

The use of signed in the relaxed case seems off. Should that be

   \EXPROFDET & \relaxeddotmul_{M,N}(i_1, i_2) &=& [ \imul_N(\extends_{M,N}(i_1), extendu_{M,N}), \imul_N(\extends_{M,N}(i_1), \extends_{M,N}(i_2)) ] \\

?

[rossberg]

~In fact, aren't the additions missing as well?~

[ngzhian]

Ohyea, should be extend to make the bitwidth line up. Thanks!