Re: to_uint64

Further, Alan and Dave wrote:

[AF]  7.9   In the data types section, there are inconsistencies in the conversion functions to_uint64 and to_int64. Each of the integer or vector  types says something like  "See section 7.2.9...". However they then list the conversions under each data type, but not always consistently with 7.2.9. See for instance page 246, section 7.9.3.2 - to_int64 and to_uint64 are missing, but on page 248 section 7.9.3.6 it says "Member functions that return the integer equivalent of the bit representation shall be provided to satisfy the requirements of 7.2.9". I think this affects sc_bv_base and sc_lv_base at least.

  [DL] to_int64() and to_uint64() are missing from all of the classes in section 7.9. These operators should be added for the following classes:
 
  sc_bv_base
  sc_logic_base
  sc_subref_f
  sc_concref_r
 
In the OSCI simulator these methods are provided by the sc_proxy<T> class.

-----owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org wrote: -----
To: systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org, stuart@cadence.com, david.long@doulos.com
From: john.aynsley@doulos.com
Sent by: owner-systemc-p1666-technical@eda.org
Date: 11/28/2010 09:45AM
Subject: to_uint64

Stuart, Dave, All,

Some time ago Stuart wrote:

"In the IEEE LRM, sc_lv<> and sc_lv_base don't have conversion function to_uint64(), but these are in the ref sim and are also mentioned in the "common characteristics" section on the data types. Perhaps there are other explicit conversion functions that were inadvertently omitted? "

Do we want to add these to the LRM?

John A

--
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.