RE: [sv-ac] Re: [sv-bc] Re: if-else

OK, we found a bug.

So are you OK with defining "if (expr)" as equivalent to "if (expr !=
1's0)" for integral expressions, "if (expr != 0.0)" for reals, and "if
(expr != null)" for handles?

Then remove the simplified explanation in the equality section and
explain bit for bit comparisons.

Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven Sharp [mailto:sharp@cadence.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 3:13 PM
> To: sharp@cadence.com; Rich, Dave
> Cc: sv-ac@eda.org; sv-bc@eda.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-ac] Re: [sv-bc] Re: if-else
> 
> 
> >From: "Rich, Dave" <Dave_Rich@mentor.com>
> 
> >The rules you quoted are now in 11.7.2 and I would say they are weak
> >because by that step, the signedness has already been determined. It
> >also conflict's with what's in 11.4.5. I interpret the rules in
11.4.5
> >to apply to any expression and not a simplification that only applies
to
> >simple operands.
> 
> I don't think you want to try to argue that the simplified
descriptions
> under the different operators take precedence over the full size/type
> rules.  Not only is there plenty of evidence to the contrary, but I
> suspect that your own implementation will disagree with you on most of
> them.
> 
> Steven Sharp
> sharp@cadence.com


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