Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Dec. 27, 2014
Loss Contingency [Abstract]
Contingencies	Contingencies Patent Litigation On July 17, 2014, a patent infringement lawsuit was filed by PLL Technologies, Inc. (PTI) against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (PLL Technologies, Inc. v. Xilinx, Inc., Case No. 1:14-CV-00945). The lawsuit pertains to one patent and PTI seeks unspecified damages, interest and costs. The Company is unable to estimate its range of possible loss, if any, in this matter at this time. On November 7, 2014, the Company filed a complaint for declaratory judgment against Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG (Papst)in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Xilinx, Inc. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG, Case No. 3:14-CV-04963) (the California Action). On the same date, a patent infringement lawsuit was filed by Papst against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. Xilinx, Inc., Case No. 1:14-CV-01376) (the Delaware Action). Both the California Action and the Delaware Action pertain to the same two patents. In the California Action, the Company seeks judgments of non-infringement of the patents by the Company and judgments that the patents are invalid and unenforceable, as well as costs. In the Delaware Action, Papst seeks unspecified damages, interest and costs. The Company is unable to estimate its range of possible loss, if any, in this matter at this time. On January 31, 2014, Evan Levine and Keith McClellan filed an action on behalf of the United States in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky (United States of America, ex. rel. Evan Levine and Keith McClellan v. Avnet Inc., et. al., Case No. 14-cv-00017). The matter alleges violations of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. Section 3729 et seq. and was filed under seal pursuant to 31 U.S.C. Section 3730(b)(2). The lawsuit seeks to recover, on behalf of the United States, $11 thousand for each unspecified, allegedly false and fraudulent claim, plus treble damages. The government investigated the allegations in the complaint and on September 12, 2014, filed a Notice of Election to Decline Intervention. On September 22, 2014, the Court unsealed the complaint and ordered it to be served on the defendants. On November 21, 2014, the government moved to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. That same day, Mr. McClellan filed a notice of dismissal, leaving Mr. Levine as the only remaining relator. The Company was served with the complaint on December 11, 2014. Plaintiffs and the Company have agreed to a stipulation extending the Company's time to respond to the complaint up to and including February 2, 2015. Based on currently available information, the Company does not believe the resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on its business, financial position or future results of operations. Other Matters Except as stated above, there are no pending legal proceedings of a material nature to which the Company is a party or of which any of its property is the subject. From time to time, the Company is involved in various disputes and litigation matters that arise in the ordinary course of its business. These include disputes and lawsuits related to intellectual property, mergers and acquisitions, licensing, contract law, tax, regulatory, distribution arrangements, employee relations and other matters. Periodically, the Company reviews the status of each matter and assesses its potential financial exposure. If the potential loss from any claim or legal proceeding is considered probable and a range of possible losses can be estimated, the Company accrues a liability for the estimated loss. Legal proceedings are subject to uncertainties, and the outcomes are difficult to predict. Because of such uncertainties, accruals are based only on the best information available at the time. As additional information becomes available, the Company continues to reassess the potential liability related to pending claims and litigation and may revise estimates.

Contingencies

Patent Litigation

On July 17, 2014, a patent infringement lawsuit was filed by PLL Technologies, Inc. (PTI) against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (PLL Technologies, Inc. v. Xilinx, Inc., Case No. 1:14-CV-00945). The lawsuit pertains to one patent and PTI seeks unspecified damages, interest and costs. The Company is unable to estimate its range of possible loss, if any, in this matter at this time.

On November 7, 2014, the Company filed a complaint for declaratory judgment against Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG (Papst)in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Xilinx, Inc. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG, Case No. 3:14-CV-04963) (the California Action). On the same date, a patent infringement lawsuit was filed by Papst against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. Xilinx, Inc., Case No. 1:14-CV-01376) (the Delaware Action). Both the California Action and the Delaware Action pertain to the same two patents. In the California Action, the Company seeks judgments of non-infringement of the patents by the Company and judgments that the patents are invalid and unenforceable, as well as costs. In the Delaware Action, Papst seeks unspecified damages, interest and costs. The Company is unable to estimate its range of possible loss, if any, in this matter at this time.

On January 31, 2014, Evan Levine and Keith McClellan filed an action on behalf of the United States in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky (United States of America, ex. rel. Evan Levine and Keith McClellan v. Avnet Inc., et. al., Case No. 14-cv-00017). The matter alleges violations of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. Section 3729 et seq. and was filed under seal pursuant to 31 U.S.C. Section 3730(b)(2). The lawsuit seeks to recover, on behalf of the United States, $11 thousand for each unspecified, allegedly false and fraudulent claim, plus treble damages. The government investigated the allegations in the complaint and on September 12, 2014, filed a Notice of Election to Decline Intervention. On September 22, 2014, the Court unsealed the complaint and ordered it to be served on the defendants. On November 21, 2014, the government moved to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. That same day, Mr. McClellan filed a notice of dismissal, leaving Mr. Levine as the only remaining relator. The Company was served with the complaint on December 11, 2014. Plaintiffs and the Company have agreed to a stipulation extending the Company's time to respond to the complaint up to and including February 2, 2015. Based on currently available information, the Company does not believe the resolution of this matter will have a material adverse effect on its business, financial position or future results of operations.

Other Matters

Except as stated above, there are no pending legal proceedings of a material nature to which the Company is a party or of which any of its property is the subject.

From time to time, the Company is involved in various disputes and litigation matters that arise in the ordinary course of its business. These include disputes and lawsuits related to intellectual property, mergers and acquisitions, licensing, contract law, tax, regulatory, distribution arrangements, employee relations and other matters. Periodically, the Company reviews the status of each matter and assesses its potential financial exposure. If the potential loss from any claim or legal proceeding is considered probable and a range of possible losses can be estimated, the Company accrues a liability for the estimated loss. Legal proceedings are subject to uncertainties, and the outcomes are difficult to predict. Because of such uncertainties, accruals are based only on the best information available at the time. As additional information becomes available, the Company continues to reassess the potential liability related to pending claims and litigation and may revise estimates.