Subject: Re: [sv-bc] Specs for atoi(), atohex(), ...,atoreal(), itoa(), ...?
From: Arturo Salz (Arturo.Salz@synopsys.com)
Date: Tue Feb 10 2004 - 10:27:16 PST
Nikhil,
The intent of the atoi() -like methods is to parse the string in the
corresponding radix, and also allowing for Verilog's "_" as an
arbitrary separator. They were not intended to parse width, tick,
or base specification. I believe another method that converts a
string from an arbitrary radix, which is selected by parsing the
optional tick...base, would be useful.
Similarly, the itoa()-like methods are only intended to produce the
ASCII straight-forward representation, not the full Verilog syntax.
I believe that is clear.
Arturo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rishiyur S. Nikhil" <nikhil@bluespec.com>
To: "Sv-Bc" <sv-bc@eda.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 9:38 AM
Subject: [sv-bc] Specs for atoi(), atohex(), ...,atoreal(), itoa(), ...?
The string methods in Sections 3.7.9 thru 3.7.15, i.e., the 'atoi()'-like
methods and the 'itoa()' like methods seem underspecified.
In the 'atoi()'-like methods (atoi, atohex, atooct, atobin, atoreal),
should they be specified to parse the full Verilog integer and real
constant syntax?
(I don't think we can appeal to the C standard for atoi() because
C's numeric constants have different syntax from Verilog's).
Similarly, do the 'itoa()'-like methods produce a full Verilog-syntax
integer constant (including the width, tick, base, ....)?
Nikhil
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Feb 10 2004 - 10:29:09 PST