Subject: RE: [sv-ac] getting local variables out of sequences
From: Miller Hillel-R53776 (r53776@motorola.com)
Date: Tue Aug 26 2003 - 06:56:25 PDT
Adam,
CBV gives you everything and you would recieve many failures each with its own internal state.
Why do you want to limit to one failure reported ? Reporting all failures (user can bound) has never
been a limitation for us.
In CBV we can time a thread and conditionalize on that time within the assertion. If not enough time
has passed we can wait for the next event.
Hillel
-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Krolnik [mailto:krolnik@lsil.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 4:45 PM
To: Miller Hillel-R53776
Cc: Havlicek John-r8aaau; sv-ac@eda.org
Subject: Re: [sv-ac] getting local variables out of sequences
Hi Hillel;
>I vote for 3 and additional syntax for putting actions inside the sequence. In CBV
>we have a notion of 3 with the "broadcast" statement.
I was thinking about this last night, and wondered what/if Mot causes actions
based on CBV sequences/properties.
So what does the broadcast statement provide/allow one to do?
It appears that this would allow performing an action based on what a thread
sees/does, but it does not solve the problem of how to report a failure
when a property fails. We want one failure message reported and I would like
to be able to utilize the internal state in the failure message.
Is there any sort of notion of oldest or longest thread in an evaluation. In
my tools implementation, we have functionality for the oldest/longest timespan
thread to consume an event and progress. Newer/shorter threads must wait for
the next event. Is is possible to use something like this to disambiguate
the local variables from threads?
Thanks.
Adam Krolnik
Verification Mgr.
LSI Logic Corp.
Plano TX. 75074
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Aug 26 2003 - 06:56:55 PDT