RE: [sv-ac] #1381

Sure this proposal can cover :) that too -- I forget if there was a
separate mantis item for followed_by. As Doron/Dimitry noted #805 needs
an update in this respect too.

Thx.
-Bassam.

-----Original Message-----
From: Doron Bustan [mailto:dbustan@freescale.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 3:35 PM
To: Eduard Cerny
Cc: Bassam Tabbara; sv-ac@eda.org
Subject: Re: [sv-ac] #1381

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.
>>
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>
>  
>