RE: [sv-ac] #1381

I like followed_by and did want to have it, but if we should not make
cover and vacuity dependent on it, i.e., not introduce a new keyword
now. This is what Doron proposes which is ok as it uses the existing
operators. I just wanted to minimize the changes, by leaving how the
condition is extracted for embedded covers and control it on the
reporting side only. 
ed


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bassam Tabbara 
> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 6:53 PM
> To: Doron Bustan; Eduard Cerny
> Cc: Bassam Tabbara; sv-ac@eda.org
> Subject: 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.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
>