RE: [sv-ac] Feedback on 1599

Agreed thx Manisha, done, proposal updated.
 
Thx.
-Bassam.
 

________________________________

From: Kulshrestha, Manisha [mailto:Manisha_Kulshrestha@mentor.com] 
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 1:33 PM
To: Bassam Tabbara; sv-ac@eda-stds.org
Subject: RE: [sv-ac] Feedback on 1599


Hi Bassam,
 
The proposal looks good. But I still think that the text for the formula
should clarify that this formula does not apply to cover on sequences as
there can be multiple passes corresponding to single attempt.
 
Thanks.
Manisha

________________________________

From: Bassam Tabbara [mailto:Bassam.Tabbara@synopsys.com] 
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 5:37 PM
To: Kulshrestha, Manisha; sv-ac@eda-stds.org
Subject: RE: [sv-ac] Feedback on 1599


Hi Manisha, thx for the feedback, more input below, proposal updated on
mantis.
 
Thx.
-Bassam.
 

________________________________

From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of
Kulshrestha, Manisha
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 3:42 PM
To: sv-ac@eda-stds.org
Subject: [sv-ac] Feedback on 1599


Hi,
 
For  vpi_get(vpiAssertDisableCovered, assertion_handle), there should be
a clear statement about what this function will return if called on a
cover sequence. Probably a value of 0 would be returned??
 
This formula used in this section does not apply to cover on sequences.
I think this mantis item should clarify that.
in progress = attempts - (successes + vacuous success + disabled +
failures)
[Bassam Tabbara] I'd rather we not say anything on both these counts, it
will only add to maintenance burden with little return. If a "result
state" does not apply to "assertion", it doesn't get hits for it i.e. 0,
this applies to any and all special cases now and future.

In the part where it explains cbAssertionDisabledEvaluation, it should
add the following at the end to clarify what is disabled state:

(e.g. as a result of disable iff condition becoming true or if an
attempt starts when the disable iff is true)
[Bassam Tabbara] It's there already, double checked. 

Also, it should clarify what kind of handle (NULL ??) would be returned
if this call is made for an assertion which does not have disable iff
condition or on a cover sequence.
[Bassam Tabbara] This (NULL) is standard VPI behavior when registration
fails in vpi_register_cb.

Also, while looking at this section it is not clear what the following
are for ? Probably this mantis can clarify that also.

- cbAssertionEnable. The assertion is enabled.
- cbAssertionReset. The assertion is reset.
[Bassam Tabbara] These are elaborated in the vpi_control() section, I
added a reference to section in the proposal text for these and couple
of other cbs (was there on other cbs already).. 

Thanks.

Manisha


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and 
dangerous content by MailScanner <http://www.mailscanner.info/> , and is

believed to be clean. 

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.