RE: [sv-ac] #805

I agree.  disable iff should not count as success for either a cover or
an assert. Consistency is important. 

Lisa

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of Adam
Krolnik
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 3:51 PM
To: Kulshrestha, Manisha
Cc: sv-ac@eda.org
Subject: Re: [sv-ac] #805



Good afternoon Manisha;

You wrote:

 >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.

It would be preferable to be consistent!

One obvious use of the disable term is for reset.  Thus if one uses
reset to
clear all pending assertions or coverage, would you really want your
events
to trigger or count (cover) when reset is asserted?

Thus, disabled assert and cover statement should not count as succeeded.

    Thanks.

-- 
     Soli Deo Gloria
     Adam Krolnik
     ZSP Verification Mgr.
     LSI Logic Corp.
     Plano TX. 75074
     Co-author "Assertion-Based Design"