RE: [sv-ac] Issue #1361

OK with me.

 

Dmitry

 

________________________________

From: Kulshrestha, Manisha [mailto:Manisha_Kulshrestha@mentor.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 6:04 PM
To: Korchemny, Dmitry; Eduard Cerny
Cc: sv-ac@eda.org
Subject: 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