Subject: Re: [sv-ac] R29a/b Optional or mandatory name for assertions/properties/assumptions.
From: Adam Krolnik (krolnik@lsil.com)
Date: Wed Sep 18 2002 - 11:50:43 PDT
Hi ovi1751;
[BTW, that's my autogenerated name for you...]
>I agree with Simon. Why force someone to name an assertion
>if he or she is happy using the default generated names?
Gail has presented many reasons for why a 'default generated'
name can create problems.
I've been thinking about proposing a requirement:
'Simulators should create a signal from an assertion name
and set it to 1/0 based on the pass/fail of the assertion
so that a waveform viewer can display this pass/fail
status of an assertion for easy identification of the time
when an assertion fails.'
It is highly useful to be able to see (in waveforms)
If the usage of assertions by external tools necessitates
a name (for consistency of results.) Then based on experience
let's require one. The cost is not very great and this can
prevent problems.
Adam Krolnik
Verification Mgr.
LSI Logic Corp.
Plano TX.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Sep 18 2002 - 11:52:26 PDT