Re: [sv-ac] Glitch-free deferred assertions

Hi Dmitry,

 From 4.4.2.1 Preponed events region:

    #1step sampling is identical to taking the data samples in the Preponed
    region of the current time slot.

It would be confusing if deferred assertions start using #1step to refer to
execution in the Postponed region of the current time slot. The two different
usages would be with respect to the opposite ends of the current time slot.

Neil

On 07/06/11 06:17, Korchemny, Dmitry wrote:
> Hi Karen,
>
>
>
> We will discuss this in our meeting. What about #1step?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dmitry
>
>
>
> *From:* Karen Pieper [mailto:karen_l_pieper@yahoo.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, July 04, 2011 16:09
> *To:* Korchemny, Dmitry
> *Cc:* sv-ac@eda-stds.org; Rich, Dave; Gordon Vreugdenhil (gordonv@model.com)
> *Subject:* Re: [sv-ac] Glitch-free deferred assertions
>
>
>
> I'd suggest #end or #stable something similar because #1 has other
> meaning elsewhere in the language.
>
>
>
> Just a thought.
>
>
>
> Karen
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Jul 4, 2011, at 5:41 AM, "Korchemny, Dmitry"
> <dmitry.korchemny@intel.com <mailto:dmitry.korchemny@intel.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> In our F2F we discussed glitch-free deferred assertions, and the
> suggestion was to mature these assertions in the Postponed region.
> This will, however, introduce a backward incompatibility, and there
> may be people who are using the action blocks of deferred assertions
> to trigger events in the test bench.
>
>
>
> Would the introduction of a new flavor of the deferred assertion
> work? I am talking about leaving the existing deferred assertions as
> they are, e.g.,
>
>
>
> assert #0 (a) …;
>
>
>
> and to introduce a new flavor with the following syntax:
>
>
>
> assert #1 (a) …;
>
>
>
> This new kind of deferred assertions works exactly as the existing
> one, except for the fact that they mature in the Postponed region
> and that their action blocks cannot change any values (i.e., they
> are essentially limited to issuing messages).
>
>
>
> This will introduce rather a small addition to the LRM, and will not
> break the backward compatibility. This is somewhat similar to the
> strobe option in covergroups. What do you think?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dmitry
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Intel Israel (74) Limited
>
> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>,
> and is
> believed to be clean.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Intel Israel (74) Limited
>
> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean.

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.