RE: [sv-ac] FW: #805

Hi Manisha,

 

Please, see also #1498 about disable iff semantics.

 

Thanks,

Dmitry

 

________________________________

From: owner-sv-ac@server.verilog.org
[mailto:owner-sv-ac@server.verilog.org] On Behalf Of Kulshrestha,
Manisha
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 6:50 PM
To: sv-ac@server.verilog.org
Subject: [sv-ac] FW: #805

 





-----Original Message-----
From: Kulshrestha, Manisha
Sent: Thu 6/1/2006 12:17 PM
To: 'sv-ac@eda.org'
Subject: #805


Hi All,

I have incorporated most of the feedback in my updated proposal
(attached here). Please send your feedback. The original proposals are
still on mantis in case you want to compare. The main change in this
document is that disabled is not a success and thus very few changes are
needed in the LRM.

Thanks.
Manisha

805: disable iff condition should produce vacuous match
Lisa:           I agree with this too - failure counters do not make
                        sense for coverage.
                        failure counters do not make sense for coverage.
Joseph:         yes
Doron:          I think that disabled should not count as a success 
                        in coverage. we need to change is the report of
the 
                        number of failures in coverage
Bassam:         yes
Dmitry:         I don't think the failure should be reported for
coverage at all.
Surrendra:      yes
Ed:                     No success with disable to be reported.
Dmitry:         I agree with the definition of the vacuous success.
                        According to our discussion about the property
                        coverage definition, there is no meaning in
disabled
                        coverage success, since it should not count as a
                        coverage event at all. 
                        Therefore the suggestions concerning
                        Clause 17.13.3, page 288,
                        Clause 29.4.3, page 482, Clause 29.4.2, page
481,
                        and Annex I are not relevant.
                        I agree with the proposal concerning  Clause
28.4.2.
Volkan:         yes