Re: [sv-ac] #1381

Ed, Bassam,

I don't think it is so important, (but it should be defined).
So if no-one else will comment on that in the next few days,
I will change the proposal, such that there is an attempt for every
evaluation of the condition in the procedural code.

do you agree that for coverage, the semantic should be

cover property (@(clk) not (a |-> not p); //(a followed_by p) ?


thanks

Doron

Eduard Cerny wrote:

>I am not sure that not countying "attempts" for embedded assert property
>when the condition is false is a good idea. This is just a syntactic
>structure and the effective one is the extracted one into a concurrent
>assertion. If one extracts it manually or let the compiler do it, the
>behavior should be the same. I.e., have the same evaluation attempts,
>even if vacuous. 
>
>ed 
>  
>


Bassam Tabbara wrote:

Doron,

What Ed says below is exactly where 1381 and 805 do not mesh. Putting
aside whether it's a disabled (vacuous) success/fail/nothing, that's a
don't care, 805 does count these as disabled *attempts*. 1381 in current
form does not even consider these attempts.

From your email we have more agreement than difference so again this
binning *outside* of an attempt seems wrong, any kind of tracking has to
have an *attempt*. Sorry for repeating myself in many different ways --
thinking aloud, and can't converge on an understanding of where you are
at :). 

Thx.
-Bassam.