Re: $arandom/$rdist_ seeds

Hi Paul, well yes it should allow them.
But the issue is a lot deeper than that.

In LRM 2.2 we had the definition:
decimal_number ::=
   [ sign ] unsigned_num

But in 2.3 we changed that to:
decimal_number ::=
   unsigned_number
   | [ size ] decimal_base unsigned_number
   | [ size ] decimal_base x_digit { _ }
   | [ size ] decimal_base z_digit { _ }

It looks like we inherited it blindly from digital.

If I look at Digital 1364 1995 it is defined as
decimal_number ::=
   [ sign ] unsigned_number
   | [ size ] decimal_base unsigned_number

But 1364-2001 (and hence SV 1800)
decimal_number ::=
   unsigned_number
   | [ size ] decimal_base unsigned_number
   | [ size ] decimal_base x_digit { _ }
   | [ size ] decimal_base z_digit { _ }

So is this a bug in digital? In 1800-2009, If I look at the rule for primary
(one of the basic building blocks for an expression) it uses primary_literal,
which uses number, which uses decimal_number. But that doesn't allow signed
values? So we can't have -ve numbers anymore?

Dave

On 05/23/2012 12:11 PM, Paul Floyd wrote:
> Hi
>
> The seeds for these system functions can be "decimal_number". The EBNF for that is
>
> decimal_number ::=
> unsigned_number
> | [ size ] decimal_base unsigned_number
> | [ size ] decimal_base x_digit { _ }
> | [ size ] decimal_base z_digit { _ }
>
> I can't see how negative numbers are allowed. Shouldn't that possibility be
>
> "[sign]decimal_number"?
>
> Regards
> Paul

-- 
==============================================
-- David Miller
-- Design Technology (Austin)
-- Freescale Semiconductor
-- Ph : 512 996-7377 Fax: x7755
==============================================
-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.