Subject: RE: [sv-ac] R29a/b Optional or mandatory name for assertions/prop erties/assumptions.
From: Dagan, Gail M (gail.m.dagan@intel.com)
Date: Wed Sep 18 2002 - 13:23:46 PDT
Even though I gave all of those reasons why a user name
is nice, it still seems to me that it's the job of the
language to allow for it, and it's the job of any design
project to decide on usage. The design project will be
choosing the tool suite and determining the methodology.
Let the design project add the rule to their RTL code
linter if they want to force mandatory naming because
the tools they've chosen want to use it.
Thanks, Gail Dagan
Phone 503-712-1781
-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Krolnik [mailto:krolnik@lsil.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 11:51 AM
To: Tom Anderson
Cc: prakash@realintent.com; simond@co-design.com; sv-ac@eda.org
Subject: Re: [sv-ac] R29a/b Optional or mandatory name for
assertions/properties/assumptions.
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 - 13:30:41 PDT