Subject: RE: [sv-ac] R29a/b Optional or mandatory name for assertions/prop erties/assumptions.
From: Andrew Seawright (andrew@0-in.com)
Date: Wed Sep 18 2002 - 14:39:06 PDT
We have found that for the very simple assertions it is awkward
to type a name. For example, consider assertions that are like
annotations
of ports and variables such as port is one_hot, reg is driven, reg has a
maximum value, it's nice to be able to specify the assertion without a
name
because its associated with a named object and it reduces typing
and thus increases adoption. It's really an annotation to an object
that already has a name.
That being said, I'm all for having names, its just that in some cases
it can be argued to be convenient to not make a name mandatory.
Andrew Seawright
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of
Prakash Narain
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 1:39 PM
To: sv-ac@eda.org
Subject: Re: [sv-ac] R29a/b Optional or mandatory name for
assertions/prop erties/assumptions.
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?
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]
>
>.
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Sep 18 2002 - 14:40:37 PDT