Re: [sv-ac] update on 805

Hi Manisha:

I have not yet gone through all the messages in this thread, so
I will comment only briefly.

I think Section 29 needs to be overhauled with regard to the 
discussion of the assertion coverage API.

Is there a way to avoid overhauling Section 29 as a part of 0805?

If not, then I think we need to look at some other issues 
together with the work on Section 29:

. The discussion of coverage in Section 17 still needs to be fixed, 
  and this will impact Section 29.

. We need to check whether treating disabled attempts as neither
  successes nor failures has addressed 1498.

J.H.


> 
> Hi All,
> =20
> Ed and Lisa have raised some questions in the past about the coverage
> information from cover directives and corresponding vpi routines.
> Currently those two do not match. After discussions with Bassam, we
> propose the following changes in the vpi routines section:
> =20
> 1. In the statement in the LRM "For assertion handle, the coverable
> entities are assertions.", we'll add something like: "The assertions
> include assert and  cover directives (cover on properties and
> sequences). Some of the vpi properties are not valid for certain cover
> directives. The limitations are listed in description for each vpi
> property.".
> =20
> 2. The description for "vpi_get(vpiAssertVacuousSuccessCovered,
> assertion_handle)" will mention that this vpi property can only be used
> for assert directives and cover directives on properties.=20
> =20
> 3. The description for "vpi_get(vpiAssertFailureCovered,
> assertion_handle)" will mention that this vpi property can only be used
> for assert directives and cover directives on properties.
> =20
> 4. We'll state that the formula "in progress =3D attempts - (successes +
> vacuous success + failures)" is not valid for cover directives on
> sequences.
> =20
> 5. In the description of the new vpi property
> "vpi_get(vpiAssertDisableCovered, assertion_handle)", will mention that
> this vpi property can only be used for assert directives.
> =20
> Similarly, we'll update the vpi callback part to match with this.
> =20
> Please send your feedback. We can discuss it further in the coming
> meeting.
> =20
> Thanks.
> Manisha
>