Re: Question about above() and cross()

Arpad -
Using the abs() operator is probably a better solution; I don't
think it costs very much to compute it -- I have a table that
indicates abs() costs less than a divide (but more than +-*).

Of course, I'm used to compact models that are full of "expensive"
calculations.  For a more abstract model, the abs() might be
expensive, and I suppose simulator vendors are welcome to
determine that they have a more efficient way to implement the
event detection than actually computing abs().

-Geoffrey


"Muranyi, Arpad" wrote:
> 
> 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