SvScMeetingMinutes200805F2F < P1800

P1800 Web>SystemVerilogSpecialCommittee>SvScMeetingMinutes>SvScMeetingMinutes200805F2F (2008-05-19, ErikSeligman) (raw view)EditAttach
---+ Meeting Minutes For SV-AC F2F, 2008-05- 14-15

---++ Day 1
<verbatim>
Present:
     Gordon Vreugdenhil,	Mentor Graphics
     Dmitry Korchemny,	Intel
     Manisha Kulshrestha, Mentor Graphics
     Erik Seligman, Intel
     Neil Korpusik, Sun Microsystems
     Jin Yang, Intel
     Abigail Morehouse,
     Dave Rich, Mentor Graphics
     Mark Hartoog, Synopsys
     Tom Thatcher, Sun Microsystems
     Michael Burns, Freescale
On Phone:
     John Havlicek, Freescale
     Lisa Piper, Cadence
     Fransoise, Martinolle, Cadence
     Don Mills,
     Mirek forczek, Aldec
     Ed Cerny, Synopsys
     Steven Sharp, Cadence
     Stuart Sutherland, Sutherland HDL

NOTE:  This is a non-voting meeting, and attendance at this meeting is not
	counted towards attaining or maintaining voting rights.


1.  Gord's presentation on assertions in procedural code

     Proposal is that an assertion in a procedural context will be enabled to
     start a new attempt on the next clock event when the procedural flow passes
     the point of instantiation of that assertion.
     - If code passes the instantiation point multiple times, (i.e. in a
loop)
       multiple attempts will be scheduled to begin on the next assertion
       clocking event.
     - If procedure is re-entered, all scheduled attempts will be flushd
       (This prevents glitch-like behavior on the assertions)
     - Need a new syntax to specify which signals will not use sampled values.
       (For example, when passing loop variables as arguments to assertion)
       e.g.  "const i"
       The constant variables would pass current value at time of scheduling,
       This value would remain unchanged through the entire assertion attempt.
     - Could have some smart defaults: automatic variables always const, etc.

     John: Likes the proposal
     Mark: Likes the proposal.  It's not backward compatible, but only in
	ill-defined cases.

What syntax form should be used for unsampled?
Suggestions:
     1.  Assertion syntax form:  assert property const(i)
     2.  Simple const cast on actual argument passed to property
     3.  Dmitry:  New $unsampled() system function
	Mark:  Could we use outside procedure?
	Tom:   This would fix Steve's example.
	Dmitry:  Would need to define formal semantics

     Dmitry:   What about using $unsampled within seq prop
     Gord: Don't want to create a situation where you have to know the
	instantiation context to code the assertion correctly
	

     Neil  What about delays in process which go over clock delays
     Gord:  Would execute candidates queued to that point..

     Abby:  Seesm funny that assertion attempts disappear invisibly
	Maybe you want to see all the assertion attempts
     Gord, Steven:  We don't really need that kind of control
     Erik:  If you want to see every execution attempt, use immediate assertions

     Neil: Likes the proposal
     Jin:  What is the implication for formal verification?
     Dmitry:  Should not affect formal verif.
     Gord:  Would allow new forms of expression which formal verificatin tools
	    could not handle

     Dmitry:  What about assertions instantiated in combinational procedural
	code which is affected by test bench inputs
     Tom:  Display Example 2:
	(Sent to sv-sc reflector on 5/8/2008, with the title
	 "Examples of Assertion Usage")
	The example describes a regular 2-procedure state machine.  The
	sequential part of the state machine is an always_ff procedure, the
	combinational part is doen with an always_comb.  The assertion
	appears in the always_comb block.

	Here's how it works:
	- The current state variable would change in NBA region. This triggers
	    the always_comb procedure.
	- The always_comb executes, passes the assertion location, and
	    schedules an assertion evaluation at the next clocking event.
	- Assertion would be executed in Observed because the clocking event
	    has occurred in this clock cycle.
	- The req signal changes in the Reactive region because it is driven by
	    test bench code
	- We return to the Active region. The always_comb block runs again.
	    Another assertion attempt is sceduled for the next clock edge.

	- Back to observed region.  Does the scheduled assertion attempt start
	  now because the clocking event occurred in this timestep?

	  (NOTE:  on later reflection, it seems that the second assertion
	   attempt does not start here, but must wait for the next clocking
	   event.  After all, just because we loop back to active region,
	   doesn't mean that always_ff procedures will execute again.  The
	   always_ff procedures have already processed their clock events,
	   and would not run a second time in the time step.  Likewise, the
	   assertion clock event was processed the first time the simulator
	   passed through observed region, and thus, the scheduled assertion
	   attempt must wait for the next clock event)

     Erik:  Are we ready to write a proposal for this?
     Gord:  It's going to be complicated.  It may touch several areas of the
	standard, and several proposals which are not in the draft yet.

     Dmitry:  Doesn't this change the assertion clock?
     Gord: We are not changing the clock:  We are simply not attempting
	assertions at timesteps where the assertion would otherwise evaluate
	to true vacuously.

     Gord:  Another way to explain this.  For assertions in a loop:
	Consider N, with range 1--Maxint.  The enable for the assertion is i<N.
     Dmitry:  I'm less confused

     Erik:  Could we split up and research the impact of this
     Gord:  Impact may be broad.  Should we wait for Draft 6
     Neil:  Draft 6 scheduled for May 28.
     Erik:  Don't want to wait that long.

AI: Reveiw Draft 5 and current proposal:  Will split up current proposals
     as follows:
     Abby:   2336 2250 2246 1599
     Steve:  2335 2188
     Ed:     2175 2171
     JOhn    2168  Draft5 Annex F 1667 1668 1549
     Manisha 2150 1731 1729
     Lisa    2100 2091
     Tom:    2090  2069
     Mark:   2033 1987
     Dave:   1901 1800
     Jin:    1769 1758
     Neil:   1757 1737

     Dmitry:  1932 1683 1682
     Gord    1698 1687 1686
     Mike:   1681 1641 1601
     Erik:   2005 1932

Chapter 16 Review   Ch 21/22 has $assert_on, etc.
   16.14.5:  will be the replaced section.

AI:  Erik: will work with Gord to create a rev0 proposal.



2.  Gord's presentation "Typing of Assertions Constructs"

     The proposal discussed the possible typing problems caused by untyped
     arguments and the substitutions semantics of sequences and properties.
     - An untyped argument to a sequence or property could take on more than
       one type internally.
     - Propose that assertions use the self-determined type of the actual
       arguments

     Gord:  Should a property definition be parsable on its own, independent of
	    any instantiation context?
     Gord:  Should a property instance be parsable, regardless of internals of
	    that property?

     Steven:  This seems kind of like the difference between value & ref args
     Gord:  This is something new, not like pass by value, not like pass by
	    reference.

	    Gord:  Self-determined type should solve many of these problems.
       With current setup each actual would have an unknown set of types.

     John:  How is this different from using a type parameter?
     Gord:  With a type parameter each instance would have a single type for
	    an actual argument.  With sequence & properties, each instance
	    has an unknown set of types for the untyped argument.

     John: Explicit management of actual is a better way to go


     What about untyped integer idea?  (This came up at previous sv-sc
meeting)
     Gord: Self-typed expression may eliminate the need for this.

     Dmitry:  But local variables defined using substitution semantics
     John:  But local variables are all typed.  There are no untyped local
	    variables.

     John:  Dmitry may be thinking of the old way of passing local
variables:
	    example:

	    property p(foo,bar);
		a ##1 (b, foo=(bar-1));
	    endproperty

     Gord:  We are not changing very much.
     Mark:  This will be a subtle change that people ar not going to understand.
	    there may be problems with Signed numbers, left-shift, etc.

AI:  Mark:  will mail some potentially problematic examples to the reflector.

     John:  Covergroups:  coverpoint expressions are self-determined.
     Gord:  So covergroups in checkers would be incompatible!
     Abby:  Doesn't like the ida of poly-morphic types

     Dmitry:  Doesn't clock inference imply a substitution semantic?
     Gord:  Don't need substitution to explain this:

     Dmitry:  example
	    sequence s1 (bit a,b);
		a ##1 b;
	    endsequence

	    sequence s2(bit a,b)
		@clk1 s1(a,b) ##1 @clk2 s1(a,b);
	    endsequence

     Dmitry:  s1 instanced twice with 2 different clocks.
     Dmitry:  Would have trouble with LTL expressions
     John:  LTL is not dealing with same problems as verilog
     Gord:  LTL implementation could use substitution, but simply expand
	    parameters using self-determinted type

Dmitry:  Do all sequences, prop have same type  eg  sequence,  property?

     Erik:  What about this.
	    property p (mystruct)
		mystruct.foo  ##1 mystruct.bar;

     Gord:  Not a big issue.  Semantics are that self-determined type of
     actual must be a type compatible with member select.

     Dmitry:  What about

	    struct b;
	    let a = top.unit1.subunit.b
	    assert property (..a.ready ...)

     Gord:  Defer this till we talk about let.

     Erik:  Are we ready to start on a proposal for this?
     Gord:  There is some disagreement.  Would prefer to get consensus before
	    working on proposal.

Straw poll:
     Tom: in favor,
     Mark: concerned about backward compatibility,  Would be great if we had
	    done this in the first place.
     Dave: in favor,
     Abby: in favor,
     Jin:  worth exploring,
     Neil: concerned about backward compatibility:  We need to quantify impact.
	    If impact is too great, we may want to reconsider
     Manisha:  fix,
     Erik:  leaning negative,  concerned about huge change in addition to
	    assertion change,
     Dmitry: Likes proposal, concern about backward compatibility.  It is
	    cleaner than what we have now.  Would want to defer this to next
	    revision of the standard.
     Gord: in favor
     Mike: Likes fixint broken things.   Thinks thins are defined. defer 
to john
     John: This should be fixed now.
     Francsois: In favor
     Don:
     Stu: In favor
     Steven: A godd way to go.

     Dmitry.  This is a complicated change.  It will require more extension.
     Neil  No more extensions, 5 year rule
     Gord:  If we don't fix this, would not be in favor of other assertion
	    enhancements.
     Neil:  Gord, don't you have concerns about backward compatibility?
     Gord:  Some concern  There will be some occurrence of problems
	   Most problems are bit-width problems.  Only problem is when using
	   expressions passed as formals
	   Don't see this too much.  People don't tend to pass expressions.
     Dave:  Could examination of OVL library to determine the exposure.
     Erik:  Would this show anything?  OVL is modules:

AI:  Tom will look at existing code.  Michael or John to look at some existing
     code.  Erik or Jin will look at Intel code
AI:  Mark to look at or create some examples
AI:  All:  Review assigned Mantis items with this change in mind.

     Gord:  Thinks that proposal should be pretty simple.  Possibly a one
	    sentence change which says that the formal argument retains
	    the self-determined type of the actual.
AI:  Gord will write up first proposal.

     John:  What about annex F?  1549 includes a specific re-write algorithm.
	    Would this have to change?
     Gord:  Not sure if changes are necessary.  Would have to examine it.
     John:  LTL is a flat language.  May just need to delete paragraph in 1594
	    talking about substitution.
     John:  maybe right answer is to scale back annex F.

	(NOTE:  John sent e-mail later saying that Annex F is talking about
	 an abstract syntax.  It's not dealing at all with parsing or type
	 determinations at all.  So this change probably doesn't apply to
	 Annex F)


3.  Use remaining time to discuss checker variables, and create
     a list of issues to discuss the following day.

     Gord:  Is there any need to at all to reference checker variables
	    hierarchically
     Dmitry:  no
     Erik:  What about a checker within a checker:  Code in checker could
	reference a signal in the instance checker.
     Gord:  Not concerned too much about this

     Dave Rich:  Concerns are:
	    Wants checkers to be simple encapsulation of otherwise legal
	    constructs.  Doesn't want to create special constructs just for
	    checkers.
     Mark:  What about action blocks:  Are they part of assertion context?
	    Could they reference checker variables.
	    Could they hierarchically access checker variable
	    functions only called in checker action blocks.

     Dave:  Are freevars same as checker variables?
     Dave: couldn't we just use rand?
     Tom:  Agree
     Gord: would it be reasonable to simply set all freevars to zero
     Dmitry:  But could use assume property to set legal cases for freevars
     Gord:  There are some unsolvable cases:

     Gord:  Could we solve just the boolean constraints.  If you run into a
	    dead-end that's okay
     Dmitry:  Needs of formal people are different from simulation people.  Need
	    some constructs for formal verification, but these may not be
	    useful for simulation

     Mark:  What about random stability for freevars?

     Dave:  What about always_check, initial_check?
	Seems you are using the construct to change an event expression

     Dmitry:  Checker instantiation semantics
     Gord: covergroups inside checkers
     Gord:  concerned about covergroup type, untyped formals  what constitutes
	    the same covergroup type.


Adjourn the meeting for the day.
</verbatim>

---++ Day 2
<verbatim>
Present:  Mark, Erik, Jin, Neil, Gord, Michael, Tom, Dmitry,

On Phone:  Lisa, Steve, John, Don, Manisha


1.  Let:  Dmitry's presentation on motivation for let

     Presentation covered various motiviations for let
     1.  Template for immediate assertions, like property for concurrent
	assertions
     2.  Shortcut for assertion modeling
     3.  It doesn't create a wire, which would be synthesized.
     Characteristics of let
     1.  It is a macro
     2.  It is local in scope
     3.  Allows for default arguments.

     Gord:  What you want is a scoped macro.  You define something, give
	    it a name, and use it.

	    If you want let behave as a macro then let must exist at compile
	    time

	    We can't allow hierarchical references to let.

     Dave:  Would need to assign let to a signal to have it available.


     Tom:  Why is this more problematic than `define?
     Gord:  It's not a pure text macro
	    Because escaping references are bound at point of declaration

     Michael:  Both let definition and use have to obey grammar.


     Dave:  What about using alias construct
     Gord:  Alias is different.  alias simply defines two nets to be
	    equivalent.  Two symbols that point to the same variable.

     Don:  Why is let not synthesizable?  It sounds like something any
	    designer would like to use.
     Gord:  If we solve the problems we could extend to the whole language.
     Michael:  Could you call a function with Let?
     Gord:  Sure.  Function definition is resolved at point of let definition,
	    resolve function call at point of let use.
     Mark:  Function doesn't have to exist at time of let declaration.

     Gord:  Potential gotcha:  let base = top.unit1.subunit1.base
	    Macro substitution resolved at declaration.
	    If user expects resolution at point of use, will be surprised.
     Steven:  IF You did let mylet = foo,  variable foo resolved at point of
	definition.

     Michael:  Could they appear in class, exposing protected members to
	    outside world?
     Gord:  Let in a class might be bad idea, but let in a class method may
	    be ok.

     Gord:  Let could appear in design unit scopes (module, generate).
	    Procedural scope:  no big issues
     Michael:  Could they refer to automatics
     Gord:  No reason why not.
     Mark:  What about constant expressions?
     Gord:   All terms of let must also be constant
     Mark:  How about reference into let in a generate block
     Gord:  Forbid this just like other hierarchical references
     Mark:  How about with interface ports
     Gord:  This would be equivalent to hierarchical references.
     Steven:  You couldn't export with modports.

     Francois:  What is difference between let and `define
     Gord:  These are scoped, binding rules for escaping names.
     Frans:  Definition and use must be in same scope?
     Gord:  Declaration, use could be in different scope
	e.g. A let defined in a package.

     Gord:  This would allow you to export something under a different name.
	
     Michael:  Why don't we just allow functions with untyped args
     Gord:    Doesn't like this
	    Wants to see consistent set of rules for overloaded functions.
	    No one would be able to understand this.
     Mark:  People will ask for if and case within let next.

     Don:  You're saying it's intractable to combine let & functions.
     Gord:  This would take a lot of time to figure out.
	    Doesn't think it is tractable.
     Dave:  Binding rules for let are very different from functions.
	    would make this very difficult to do.
     Mark:  Let is bound at compile time, functions are bound at elaboration
	    time.


     Tom:  What are specific changes that must be made to the let proposal?
     Dave:  Move to expressions chapter.  Make it applicable to entire design
	    space.
     Gord:  Hierarchical reference to lets should be forbidden.

AI:  Dmitry:  Consult with Dave to find new home for Let.  Revise proposal


2.  Checker issues

a.  Checkers just encapsulation mechanism

     Dave:  What is reason for checkers?  encapsulation?  Why not use a module?
	    Is this simply to be able to put them in procedural code?
     Gord:  Checkers currently in module namespace.  This is an error.
	    If this is true, we couldn't put them in a package.  Module names
	    are global.
	    Checkers should not be in module name space.
	    Result:  can't apply configuration to a checker
	    checkers not first-class participants in name resolution
     Gord:  Name resolution of checker should follow sequence and property
	    names.

     Gord:  Should sequence & property  behave like functions?
     Gord:  Instance vs. declaration: difference between referencing checker
	    internals, vs checker declaration.

     Gord:  Would like to forbid hier reference to checker name to instantiate
	    it.  Checker declaration should be in a package
	    This is more restrictive than rules for sequence & property.

     Gord:  Checkers are actual hierarchical constructs, as opposed to
	    sequences & properties,  that's why they require more rules.
     Gord:  May also want to apply self-determined types constraints that
	    we discussed yesterday to checkers as well.

     Gord:  We have two sets of rules:
	sequences & properties:  formals use self-determined type of actual
	let:  smart macro approach

     Mark:  Verilog:  tries to automatically size expression.
	    VHDL :  doesn't do anything for you.
	    self-determined type is going to be unexpected for Verilog users

     Michael:  Let is using different rules.
     Gord:  This is because let is essentially a macro.
     Erik:  Summary: If we go with self-determined types for seq & prop,
	    checkers should be consistent.
     Michael:  problem of losing bits should be "lint-able"


b.  Bind of checkers

     Gord:  Question.  Is it legal to bind a nested module into a different
	    place?
     Mark:  How would you access the module name?
     Gord:  I hope this is illegal.

     Gord:  Likewise, binding a checker defined inside non-package scope
	    should be illegal.
	    Checkers defined within a package should be fine.
	i.e.  checker defined within module.  can't be bound elsewhere
     Tom:  What about compilation unit scope?
     Gord:  This is OK.  Compilation unit scope is almost the same as a package.
     Tom, Dmitry:  seems reasonable

     Gord:  Would have a problem allowing bind into a procedural scope.
     Tom, Dmitry:  No real reason to do this

c.  Checker instantiation in procedural code

     Steven:  What about fork-join blocks?
     Mark:  We don't allow assertions in fork-join at all.
     Gord:  What about procedural blocks within checkers when checker
	    instantiated within procedural code?
     Tom:  Original proposal:  loop index variables may be used only in
	    assertions, not in modeling code.  Modeling code was not
	    duplicated.  Modeling code executed independently of checker
	    instantiation context.

     Erik:  Should checkvars, & procedural code be duplicated for multiple
	    scheduled attempts
     Dmitry:  there is a use case for this
	    i.e. generic checker put in a for loop

     Gord:  Think of checker as a class, with static, and automatic variables
	    i.e. when procedural code flow passes a checker instance, a new
	    "instance" of the checker "class" would be created.  Static
	    variables are not duplicated, there is one copy for the class,
	    automatic variables are duplicated with each class instance.
	    Procedural blocks within a checker are the "static" variables,
	    assertions are the "automatics".
     Neil:  When would "instance" go away
     Gord:  When attempt terminates.
     Erik:  Doesn't always_check run forever?
     Gord:  but always_check can't reference const variables
	    It is the "static" part of the checker "class"
     Steven:  What about $inferred_enable
	    With new flow, there could be inconsistencies
     Gord:  Now there is no reason for $inferred_enable

     Mark:  When do assignments actually occur
     Gord:  for a static:  because it always exists: easy to describe
	    Automatic:  initialized at construction.
	    Automatics can only be used in assertions.
	    Automatics associated with a given attempt


     Michael: Sequence match item calling function which modifies variable
	    we already have problem of mismatch

     Gord:  Don't talk about sampled values of checkvars

     Erik:  Summary
	Have static and automatic variables within checkers
	static variable and procedures are free running
	automatic variables and assignments of these are based on
	attempts (arming by procedural code).

Break for Lunch

     Gord:  Class metaphor breaks down when checker instantiated multiple places
     Erik:  What about assert instance in module with an automatic?
     Gord:  Could do that, but doesn't make sense.
	    Automatics only created once.
     Steven: May need to come up with examples to see how this works.
     Gord:  Need to test scenario of assertions in checker w/ different clocks
     Gord:  Could have a restriction that a checker with an automatic variable
	    is illegal in a module context.   This could be ugly.
     Michael:  Checkers allow assertions within always_check.
     Erik:  But we only allow nB assignments in always_check.
     Dmitry:  No, assertions are allowed in always_check to infer clock.
     Gord:  Always_check:  When clocking event occurs, where does activity
	    occur?
     Mark:  Continuous checker variable assigns:  Where do they occur?
     Gord:  If continuous assigns occur in Observed, you would need to evaluate
	    them first, before assertion evaluations.  This is a potential
	    race condition.
     Erik:  What is solution?
     Gord:  Short term solution:  Don't worry about races.
	User would be responsible for writing race-free code

     Gord:  Assigments to checker variables in observed region is problematic.
	    A region is defined as a bucket of events in which any event can
	    be processed in any order
     Erik:  Tool vendor could put in additional rules to make it work.
     Gord:  AAR, SAR rules specify an ordering of event processing, this is
	    counter to the whole idea of a region
     Erik:  Could remove AAR SAR from language requirements
	    These could be tool vendor additional requirements.

     Manisha:  Couldn't we just remove races by moving checker variable
	   assignments to the reactive region?
     Manisha:  Then to evaluate expression using .ended, would need to use
	    and then use .triggered, instead.

     Gord:  sequence:  s1;   a ##1 s2.ended
	    This is a race condition!  There's no guarantee that s2.ended
	    will return the correct value.
	    This is because call to s2.ended could occur before s2 is
	    processed, and the .ended function may not return a true.
     Dmitry, Tom:  IF this is the case then .ended is broken, and unusable.
	    Even .triggered is unusable.
     Tom:  The .ended construct is a method, correct?  The method could be
	    implemented to guarantee the correct result is returned.  It could:
	    a.  wait for s2 to be processed
	    b.  pull s2 off the queue and process it before returning.

     Gord:  Fix for ended:  schedule things which are independent first
	    Then schedule other dependent things.
AI:  Gord  Write a proposal to fix this.

Checker Variables:

     Dave:  Couldn't checker continuous assignments be replaced completely by
	    let?
     Dmitry:  What about different assignments to bits of an array?
     Dave:   Yes, you would have to use concatenations in this case

     Gord:  Another idea:  use:
	    program always @ (posedge clk)
		b <= a
	    Would cause NBA to be executed in the reactive region because it
	    is now a testbench construct.

     Dave:  Why are special checker variables needed for sequential assignments
     Dmitry:  So that update will occur in observed region
     Tom:  Couldn't they behave like normal NBA assignments?  Update the values
	    in NBA region
     Dmitry:  might work.

     Dmitry:  Need an always @ (edge clk)
     Dave     Separate issue.  We'll talk about that later

     Gord:  Couldn't we eliminate "checkvar", but just adjust scheduling
	    semantics within checkers.
     Mickael: We did the same in other areas

     Dmitry:  What about checkvars outside of checkers?

     Gord:  Is the only reason for modified semantics to  assign a variable to
	seq.ended?

     Dmitry:  Willing to do without continuous assigns.


     Dmitry: What about edge
     Rich:  Edge already a keyword, but we could use it.
     Dmitry:  This would allow clocking on both edges of a clock.
	    Sometimes this is needed in assertions
     Tom:  Sometimes it's also needed to model exotic flip-flop designs.


     Gord:  Free-variables:  Could we just have random vars by not initiazing
     Michale:  or we initialize value to $free.
     Gord:  We have to be careful here


Conclusion:  No need for checker vars
     NBA's will follow std NBA semantics
     No continuous assignss
     Use Let to replace continuous designs
     No requirements for initialization

     In Checker:
         always, initial
         NBA assignments
         no continuous freevars
         assertions

Random variables
     Dave:  Why not use rand()?
     Gord:  Don't want to perturb randoms stability for design.

     Erik:  How would this work?  Like this?
	always @(gclk)
	    a <= <random>
     Gord:  Normal procedure is to solve for randoms at beginning

     Gord:  Random stability
	May need to have random variables have a separate seed.
	would random stability of module be affected by a bind?
	Insertion of assertion into design should not affect
	random stability. -- Need a statement to this effect.


Covergroups:
     Gord:  If we extend class metaphor of checkers, how do covergroups 
fit in?
	    Covergroup instantiation creates new covergroup type
	    In classes:  you have embedded vs instantiated covergroups.
	    Is a covergroup declaration in a checker always considered
	    an embedded covergroup
	    One covergroup type within checker per covergroup declaration.

     Tom:  Covergroups declarations were removed from checkers.  Only 
instances
	    of covergroups were allowed.
     Gord:  Probably need to put them back in.  Otherwise this will cause us
	    to lose data about the coverage.  Some coverage info is
	    bound to the covergroup type, not to the covergroup instance.
     Tom:  Have we solved the problems that caused us to ban declarations of
	    covergroups within checkers?
     Gord:  Discussions on automatic/static variables have resolved 
problems.

AI:  Tom:  Update covergroup proposal to permit declarations in checkers

     Dmitry:  Example:  Use of let may give different results for concurrent
	    assertions vs. immediate assertion.

     Tom:  Reason for discrepancy is that we plan to have sequences and
	    properties use self-determined type, while let is just a
	    straight macro-substitution.



Neil: We need a list of things to scan for in reviewing mantis items.


</verbatim>


-- Main.ErikSeligman - 19 May 2008
Topic revision: r1 - 2008-05-19 - 21:45:45 - ErikSeligman
P1800