RE: [sv-ac] FW: #805

Manisha,

 

Is there an implication here that a "disabled" counter also exists?  It
was not added to the list of counters in 17.13.3 - it was stated that
disabled evaluations do not affect the other counters. But in 29.4.3,
the section that talks about accessing coverage counts via vpi calls, it
states: in progress = attempts - (successes + vacuous success + disabled
+ failures).  Isn't this implying that a disabled counter exists since
it is not meaningful otherwise?  

 

I question the value of requiring a disabled counter.  I think the
disabled counts should be included with the vacuous counts. If a tool
vendor wants to add separate counters for the two, they can choose to do
so, but it should not be required.

 

Lisa

 

ps - sorry I did not pick up on that earlier!

 

________________________________

From: owner-sv-ac@verilog.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@verilog.org] On Behalf
Of Kulshrestha, Manisha
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 2:35 PM
To: Eduard Cerny; sv-ac@verilog.org
Subject: RE: [sv-ac] FW: #805

 

Hi All,

 

I have uploaded a new version of the proposal on mantis. This includes
suggestions by Lisa (done differently than suggested) and corrections
from Ed ( I have made succeeded to succeeded nonvacuously). 

Ed, I have made the corrections but I am not sure about usefulness of
those callbacks. I feel callback on each disable evaluation when disable
is already true, is going to be unnecessary and expensive. Probably
Bassam can suggest something. Anyone else ?

 

Thanks.

Manisha

 

________________________________

From: Eduard Cerny [mailto:Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 7:39 AM
To: Kulshrestha, Manisha; sv-ac@verilog.org
Subject: RE: [sv-ac] FW: #805

Manisha, 

 

the last statement in the document you sent says:

 

- cbAssertionSuccess, cbAssertionVacuousSuccess,
cbAssertionDisabledEvaluation and cbAssertionFailure: cb_time is the
time when the assertion succeeded or failed.

 

Should it say that in the case of disabled evaluation it is the time
when it was disabled? Rather than just succeeded or failed? Is it useful
to report disabled time likely to be the start time in many cases?)
Also, under succeeded, does it cover vacuous success? 

 

Best regards,

ed

	 

	
________________________________


	From: owner-sv-ac@verilog.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@verilog.org]
On Behalf Of Kulshrestha, Manisha
	Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 11:50 AM
	To: sv-ac@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