From: Michael McNamara (mac@surefirev.com)
Date: Tue Apr 21 1998 - 15:27:48 PDT
Thomas Fitzpatrick writes:
> Here's the other one:
>
> The proposal as indicated in Anders' html file from April 6 should
> be accepted as is:
I am getting confused reading the text of this proposal, and I think
we will be best served if I restate the proposal, so here goes:
Proposal
Change the second table entry in Table 4-21 on page 22 to:
+-------------------------------+-------+------------------------------+
| i op j where op is | | operands are sized to |
| === !== == != && || > >= < <= | 1 bit | max(L(i),L(j)) |
+-------------------------------+-------+------------------------------+
Add the following paragraphs at the end of section 4.1.7 on page 33:
When both operands of a relational expression are signed intergral
operands (an integer, or a unsized, unbased integer) then the
expression shall interpreted as a comparison between signed values.
When either operand of a relational expression is a real operand then
the other operand shall be converted to an equivalent real value, and
the expression shall interpreted as a comparison between two real
values.
Otherwise the expression shall interpreted as a comparison between
unsigned values.
Change the first sentence in paragraph 8 on page 7 to:
A plus or minus operator preceding the size constant is a unary plus
or minus operator.
Discussion:
This reflects the behaviour of the existing simulators (VCS,
Verilog-XL and Polaris)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4
: Mon Jul 08 2002 - 12:52:48 PDT
and
sponsored by Boyd Technology, Inc.