RE: [sv-bc] 'inside' on real operands

Will there be rounding and/or truncation problems with this sort of
comparison operation?

 

From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org] On
Behalf Of Alsop, Thomas R
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 3:03 PM
To: Bresticker, Shalom; sv-bc
Subject: RE: [sv-bc] 'inside' on real operands

 

I didn't see any response to this.  I think Shalom is right.  Tables
11-2 and 11-3 needs to be updated to reflect that the inside operator
can be used for real operands.  Not sure how this will need to be worded
in the table, but it's well worded in 11.4.14:

 

The inside operator uses the equality ( == ) operator on nonintegral
expressions to perform the comparison.

If no match is found, the inside operator returns 1'b0. Integral
expressions use the wildcard equality

(==?) operator so that an x or z bit in a value in the set is treated as
a do-not-care in that bit position (see

11.4.7). As with wildcard equality, an x or z in the expression on the
left-hand side of the inside operator is

not treated as a do-not-care.

 

-Tom

 

________________________________

From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org] On
Behalf Of Bresticker, Shalom
Sent: Monday, September 03, 2007 6:36 AM
To: sv-bc
Subject: [sv-bc] 'inside' on real operands

 

Hi, 

Table 11-3 says that the 'inside' set membership operator cannot be used
on real operands. 

But 11.4.14 says, "The inside operator uses the equality ( == ) operator
on nonintegral expressions to perform the comparison." 

The equality operator is legal for real operands, so why can 'inside'
not be used? 

Thanks, 
Shalom 

Shalom Bresticker 
Intel Jerusalem LAD DA 
+972 2 589-6852 
+972 54 721-1033 


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and 
dangerous content by MailScanner <http://www.mailscanner.info/> , and is

believed to be clean. 
-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and 
dangerous content by MailScanner <http://www.mailscanner.info/> , and is

believed to be clean. 


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.