Re: [sv-ac] update on 805

Hi John,

Indeed you captured the crux of this. The interpretation I made below does treat an "attempt" in equation to mean a "completed" attempt where kills  are dropped assuming side-effect free assertions. I did not elaborate earlier on my search of previous drafts for original intent of result collection in coverage clause.

That said, I agree with your concern we do use attempt in assertion chapter to refer to *start* so adding a killed counter is clearer where attempt count is all the starts not just results (non aborted). On/off do not let attempts start so no effect.

** of course adding the killed state means we would extend vpi access/query with it too... Alternatively we can change "attempt" in equation, if we think that this state in not intersting ... But clear misunderstanding.

THX. 
-Bassam

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org <owner-sv-ac@eda.org>
To: sv-ac@eda-stds.org <sv-ac@eda-stds.org>
Sent: Tue Sep 05 05:21:45 2006
Subject: Re: [sv-ac] update on 805

Hi All:

I don't think the impact of $asserton, $assertoff, $assertkill on 
the concept of attempt has yet been clearly defined.

From the user's perspective, an attempt that is aborted by a
$assertkill looks essentially like an attempt that is aborted by a
disable iff.  The attempt might have done a bunch of stuff (written
$display messages, etc.) before being aborted.  

For this reason, I'm not happy with saying that an attempt that is 
aborted by a $assertkill did not exist.

I am happy saying that an attempt that does not start because of a
$assertoff (including the implicit $assertoff that comes with a 
$assertkill) did not exist.

This suggests to me that the equation should have terms for both
attempts that are disabled and attempts that are killed.

J.H.

> X-Authentication-Warning: server.eda-stds.org: majordom set sender to owner-sv-ac@eda.org using -f
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0
> Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
> Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 17:15:34 -0700
> Thread-Topic: [sv-ac] update on 805
> Thread-Index: AcbOB7O74OO05MLNT2mFVRVTkN6kDQAAxrMwAAA3I3AAAE0tYAAAITTgAAXgFYQ=
> From: "Bassam Tabbara" <Bassam.Tabbara@synopsys.com>
> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Sep 2006 00:15:35.0023 (UTC) FILETIME=[E9056FF0:01C6CE24]
> X-Virus-Status: Clean
> X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by server.eda-stds.org id k820FbDu026172
> Sender: owner-sv-ac@eda.org
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> The disabled in updated equation is that of disable iff as 805 states. The kill task/vpi_control do not affect this equation because they abort and kill the attempt itself. Also the on/off task/vpi_control have no bearing since there would be no attempt to begin with.
> 
> THX. 
> -Bassam
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org <owner-sv-ac@eda.org>
> To: Lisa Piper <piper@cadence.com>; sv-ac@eda-stds.org <sv-ac@eda-stds.org>
> Sent: Fri Sep 01 14:30:40 2006
> Subject: RE: [sv-ac] update on 805
> 
> Lisa,
>  
> I am not sure but I think this formula does not take into account the effect of $assertkill. Bassam, do you know ?
>  
> Manisha
>