RE: [sv-ac] #805

Hi All,

We have discussed this issue in detail for a long time. I would like
your comments on this as I want to come up with a proposal acceptable to
the group.

Based on my understanding so far, we do not want disable iff to result
in success and it should only be disabled (no success or failure) for
covers. This will result in no coverage data about disable iff and no
pass action execution on disable iff. For asserts, we want disable iff
to result in disabled success. This will make pass action to get
executed on disable iff. 

Do we want to distinguish between disable iff condition in cover vs.
assert or it should be consistent. I would prefer same definition for
asserts where disable iff does not result in success.

Please send your comments.

Thanks.
Manisha



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org] On
Behalf Of Korchemny, Dmitry
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 6:31 AM
To: Doron Bustan; sv-ac@server.eda.org
Subject: RE: [sv-ac] #805

I don't think the failure should be reported for coverage at all.

Dmitry

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@server.eda.org] On
Behalf Of Doron Bustan
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 4:16 PM
To: sv-ac@server.eda.org
Subject: [sv-ac] #805

This item is closely related to the coverage discussion.
I think that disabled should not count as a success in coverage.

Another thing that I think that we need to change is the report of the
number of failures in coverage, which I don't understand.

Doron