RE: [sv-ac] Issue #1361

It would have to redefine $asserton / $assertoff since these already
have a certain meaning, or define a new name. From the use point of
view, it would be simpler like you propose.
ed


________________________________

	From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf
Of Korchemny, Dmitry
	Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 10:49 AM
	To: Kulshrestha, Manisha
	Cc: sv-ac@eda.org
	Subject: [sv-ac] Issue #1361
	
	

	Hi Manisha,

	 

	Since there are going to be many kinds of coverage information
to be enabled/disabled, wouldn't it be easier to have one system task
with parameters for all of them?

	 

	E.g., instead of $assertfailon - $asserton(`ASSERT_FAIL); also
$asserton(`ASSERT_FAIL | `ASSERT_PASS)

	 

	The exact constant names I am using are not a part of the
proposal, just an illustration.

	 

	What do you think?

	Thanks,

	Dmitry