RE: Question about above() and cross()

Geoffrey,

Thanks for the trivial solution example.  I wonder
though, how efficient it is?  It seems that the
condition in the IF statement will need to be
evaluated twice at EVERY analog iteration this
way.  I could perhaps do @(above(abs(expr))) but
this will also need an extra calculation for each
iteration.  Not knowing too much about the internals
of simulators I am curious how much this costs
computationally?

Thanks,

Arpad
=====================================================


-----Original Message-----
From: geoffrey.coram@analog.com [mailto:geoffrey.coram@analog.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 9:45 AM
To: Muranyi, Arpad
Cc: Verilog-AMS LRM Committee
Subject: Re: Question about above() and cross()

Arpad -
I didn't like above(); I had hoped to get cross() extended somehow
to trigger in dc analysis, but there was a backwards-compatibility
concern.

Of course, trivially,
  @(above(expr) or above(-expr))
will trigger for a crossing in either direction.


-Geoffrey