Re: [sv-ac] 1768 review

Hi Lisa, 

To be more specific, what I was getting at is that a disable iff goes with property_spec and not a sequence_expr currently. Same reasoning in LRM would apply here for cover sequence, leaving the disable at property level with cover property.

THX. 
-Bassam

-----Original Message-----
From: Lisa Piper <piper@cadence.com>
To: Bassam Tabbara <Bassam.Tabbara@synopsys.COM>; sv-ac@eda-stds.org <sv-ac@eda-stds.org>
Sent: Tue Jul 03 20:47:14 2007
Subject: RE: [sv-ac] 1768 review

Hi Bassam,

Thanks for the comments. I agree with all except #2. There may be times
when you don't want to report coverage of a sequence, such as during
reset. I think it applies.

I have uploaded a revised copy of 1768 to Mantis, attached for
convenience.

Lisa

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On Behalf Of
Bassam Tabbara
Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2007 12:43 PM
To: sv-ac@eda-stds.org
Subject: [sv-ac] 1768 review

Hi Lisa,
 
Here's my feedback:

1) Syntax 16-16

Change "Cover_.... :=" to "cover_..."

2) "disable iff" does not make sense in above production since this is a
*sequence*

3) ditto on (1)/(2) for A.6.10

4) 16.14.3 change "e.g. cover property" to "i.e. cover property"

5) For 16.14.3 see (2) above and update

6) Last sentence "Whether cover property or
cover sequence is used is dependent on whether one match or multiple
match semantics is desired."

Change to 

"Whether cover property or
cover sequence is used depends on whether one match or multiple match
semantics is desired respectively.

 
Thx.
-Bassam.

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



-- This message has been scanned for viruses anddangerous content by MailScanner, and isbelieved to be clean.