I think that the user should have at least the option to report "vacuous successes" for coverage. I would prefer that we will not define vacuity for coverage at the first place, but at least have the option to ignore it. For this option we need the followed_by Doron Eduard Cerny wrote: >Hi Doron, Bassam, > >Currently it is also an implication rather than a followed_by. I guess >it does not matter if the reporting and execution of action blocks would >ignore vacuous successes. So, do we need to change to followed_by? > >ed > > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Doron Bustan [mailto:dbustan@freescale.com] >>Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 4:26 PM >>To: Eduard Cerny >>Cc: Bassam Tabbara; sv-ac@eda.org >>Subject: 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. >> >> >> >> >> > > >Received on Wed May 10 15:34:47 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed May 10 2006 - 15:34:52 PDT