1647 real type issues

Hello Darren,

I've looked through my mailbox but haven't run into those e-mails about real type that you mentioned yesterday. I guess you were referring to issue 2884 about the missing sections on real number generation and coverage. So I just need to get a hold of these sections, right? Looking at them in the Cadence e manual it seems that they require some work (they have a lot of tool references, and include a lot of examples).

I have two comments on resolutions to previous issues:

I think the C interface part should be left outside the standard. There is no mention of C interface for any other part of the language, and it makes no sense to have it just for reals. If we choose to standardize the existing C interface supported by Specman we would need to do it across the board.

I am uncomfortable with the new names for constants that were chosen. The P1647_ prefix is a naming convention we don't have anywhere else in the standard, and in particular not for existing numeric constants. Also this definition would immediately make all Specman versions non-complaint in this respect. Perhaps we should leave these constants outside the standard. Otherwise I think we should discuss again the right names for these constants.

Thanks,
Matan.

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