RE: [sv-ac] Issue #1361

Dimitry,

The tasks $asserton/$assertoff are used for controlling assertions. Whereas we are trying to control action blocks here. So, we can choose a name like $assertactionon/$assertactionoff.

Manisha


-----Original Message-----
From: Korchemny, Dmitry [mailto:dmitry.korchemny@intel.com]
Sent: Thu 3/16/2006 8:00 AM
To: Eduard Cerny; Kulshrestha, Manisha
Cc: sv-ac@eda.org
Subject: RE: [sv-ac] Issue #1361
 
If they are used without arguments, the meaning may be as it is at
present - everything.

 

Thanks,

Dmitry

 

________________________________

From: Eduard Cerny [mailto:Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 5:58 PM
To: Korchemny, Dmitry; Kulshrestha, Manisha
Cc: sv-ac@eda.org
Subject: 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