AHDL comparator coding style: A typical AHDL (or HDL) magnitude comparator follows an algorithm most naturally expressed using which construct?

Introduction / Context:
A magnitude comparator takes two binary quantities and asserts exactly one of three outputs: greater-than, equal-to, or less-than. The logical flow mirrors pairwise comparison from the most significant bit downward, which is straightforward to express in HDL as a chain of conditional tests.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Two input vectors of identical width.
• Outputs: GT, EQ, LT (mutually exclusive).
• Combinational (no clock).

Concept / Approach:
IF/ELSE constructs naturally encode hierarchical comparisons: first compare MSBs; if they differ, decide immediately; if equal, continue to the next lower bit; or compare the entire vectors directly. This produces clean, synthesizable logic and mirrors the algorithm typically shown in textbooks and AHDL examples.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Simulation confirms single-hot outputs. Synthesis reports produce simple comparators or subtract-compare logic depending on the tool.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• FUNCTION constructs: Possible, but less transparent for multi-output flags.
• CASE constructs: Useful when mapping codes, but if/else matches comparison flow better.
• PROCESS constructs: A process is a container; the key is the if/else logic inside.

Common Pitfalls:
Leaving outputs partially assigned; not ensuring mutual exclusivity; forgetting vector width mismatches.

Final Answer:
IF/ELSE constructs