Subject: Re: [sv-ac] An opinion on convenience requirements
From: Adam Krolnik (krolnik@lsil.com)
Date: Thu Sep 12 2002 - 15:46:59 PDT
Good afternoon Prakash:
Hmmm, you said:
"We should vote for:
shortcuts,
accept/reject from contexts out of assertions,
convenient ways of specifying clocks/reset/etc.,
ability to refer to a group of assertions, etc.
at the expense of sacrificing modularity. That is because
[the]convenience of writing assertions will play an important
role in adoption."
Erich wrote:
"One thing that would make assertions
NOT easy to use, and
NOT improve productivity,
is if assertions written to verify the design are just as
difficult to verify as the design itself."
Continuing the terse statement discussion:
o Shortcuts that aren't implemented aren't !
o Assertions not written are useless.
o Tool features that fail aren't used.
o Translating assertions isn't productive.
o Convenience has a variable cost - from low to No thank you!
Assertions need to:
work
be compact (not terse) and understandable
be used by multiple tools.
If I can't have a simulator and a formal tool that understands my
assertions, then we are missing the mark. I prefer having a
solution rather than waiting for the convenient solution.
Adam Krolnik
Verification Mgr.
LSI Logic Corp.
Plano TX. 75074
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Sep 12 2002 - 15:48:41 PDT