Re: [sv-ac] cover sequence

Hi Ed, Lisa,

When I first learned SVA, it was quite counter-intuitive to write

	sequence mysequence  @clk a ##1 b;
	cover property  mysequence;
              ^^^^^^^^

So this change might make things more intuitive for a new designer, in
addition to clarifying the language.

(Of course, the fact that you would still be able to write
"cover property mysequence", and that this would od something slightly
different than "cover sequence mysequence" is still going to be confusing.)

Tom

Eduard Cerny wrote On 05/24/07 10:42,:
> Hi Lisa,
>  
> some time ago, there was a discussion (and perhaps even a proposal) that
> we should have
> cover sequence ()  for all matches, and
> cover property () for first match only.
>  
> Since the LRM is not that precise as to when cover property is first or
> all match, perhaps we could do this change.
>  
> What do you / others say?
>  
> ed
> 
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     *From:* owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] *On Behalf
>     Of *Lisa Piper
>     *Sent:* Thursday, May 24, 2007 1:24 PM
>     *To:* sv-ac@eda.org
>     *Subject:* [sv-ac] cover sequence
> 
>     Hi all,
> 
>     The LRM currently specifies different statistics for “cover
>     property” depending on whether the argument is a sequence_expr or a
>     property_spec, however it is not clear how to distinguish a
>     property_spec from a sequence_expr.  I already have a proposal that
>     introduces a new syntax “cover sequence” that should be used when
>     the all-match statistics are desired.  The question is:
> 
>     1.      is there a need for the (one match per attempt) semantics
>     for sequences?  If so:
> 
>     a.      should a keyword be added to the “cover sequence” syntax
>     that is used to distinguish this?  (example:   cover sequence @* (
>     <seq>) )
> 
>     b.      is it sufficient for the user to simply use the “cover
>     property” syntax with a seq argument when a maximum of one match per
>     attempt is desired.
> 
>     I’d like to get some feedback on this and then I’ll publish the
>     proposal.
> 
>     Lisa
> 
> 
>     -- 
>     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* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean. *

-- 
------------------
Thomas J. Thatcher
Sun Microsystems
408-616-5589
------------------


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