Subject: Re: [sv-ac] R29a/b Optional or mandatory name for assertions/prop erties/assumptions.
From: Shrenik Mehta (Shrenik.Mehta@sun.com)
Date: Wed Sep 18 2002 - 14:36:24 PDT
.Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 13:39:28 -0700
.From: Prakash Narain <prakash@realintent.com>
.
.However, the harder we make for engineers to debug feedback from the tool
.and to maintain their tool control scripts while their design is
.changing, the
.harder it will be to get the assertions adopted. Today I analyzed ovi1751
.and fixed a bug. Tomorrow ovi1769 requires debugging.
.
.Let us use a different approach.
.
.I say that if I am a design manager using assertions I will make naming of
.assertions mandatory. Let us hear from other design manager wannabes
.out their. Gail, what would you do?
So on a project, if we have to write about 10,000 assertions how would it
work or not work?
I have not followed the thread too carefully, so I might have missed the
context.
Shrenik
.
.Best Regards,
.
.Prakash
.
.Tom Anderson wrote:
.
.>Well said, Gail. One additional point is that we want to encourage
.>engineers to use assertions. The more characters we require for each
.>assertion, the harder we make it look.
.>
.>Tom A. [aka ovi1751]
.>
.>.
.>
.
.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shrenik Mehta Tel: 408-774-8580
Senior Engineering Manager Fax: 408-774-8154
Global Testability, Tools and Validation
Computer Systems email:shrenik.mehta@Sun.Com
Sun Microsystems pager:shrenik.mehta@pager.Eng.Sun.COM
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Sep 18 2002 - 14:39:35 PDT