RE: [sv-ac] Issue #1361

But these tasks already have arguments like in $dumpvars. 
ed
 


________________________________

	From: Korchemny, Dmitry [mailto:dmitry.korchemny@intel.com] 
	Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 11:01 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