RE: [sv-ec] rand in struct with union members

That is not correct: real types are excluded. The LRM explicitly limits random variables to be integral types.

        Arturo

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-ec@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Mlynek
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 11:36 PM
To: 'Steven Sharp'; shalom.bresticker@intel.com; sv-ec@eda.org
Subject: RE: [sv-ec] rand in struct with union members

In LRM ther is a list of types allowed to be random variable there is no
unpacked unions among them so why to add this explisit statement.
There is no such statement ie for reals.

DANiel

-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Sharp [mailto:sharp@cadence.com]
Sent: 9 września 2009 03:05
To: shalom.bresticker@intel.com; sharp@cadence.com; sv-ec@eda.org;
daniel.mlynek@aldec.com
Subject: RE: [sv-ec] rand in struct with union members


>From: "Daniel Mlynek" <daniel.mlynek@aldec.com>

>So you are saying that only unpacked unions cannot be made random. If
>so then the whole sentence from which we started the discussion is
>redundand and mention about unions should be removed.

We could change that sentence to say "unpacked union" instead of "union",
but we cannot remove it unless we add something else that plugs the loophole
and ensures that unpacked unions cannot be made rand.  Unless we do that,
the sentence is not redundant.


>From Steven email I think that LRM was  saying that packed union cannot
>be made random if nested in unpacked struct - but this restriction is
>controversial.

I don't see a technical reason for it, and have no problem relaxing it.


Steven Sharp
sharp@cadence.com


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



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