RE: [sv-ac] 1768 review

Hi,

perhaps we could leeave disable iff out of cover sequence because if
reject_on and accept_on are accepted :-) then disable iff is not needed.

ed
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ac@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@eda.org] On 
> Behalf Of Bassam Tabbara
> Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 3:05 AM
> To: Lisa Piper; sv-ac@eda-stds.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-ac] 1768 review
> 
> Hi Lisa,
> 
> Again, the semantics of such syntax is not defined for sequence --
> disable iff is at top level only so the production you have 
> effectively
> says: cover sequence (property_spec).
> 
> Now, I thought the proposal intent was to distinguish the
> property_spec/sequence_expr confusion (see motivation), and 
> merely add a
> cover sequence syntax for the old cover property 
> (sequence_expr), hence
> my #2 below. If there is more to it, then this needs to be
> clarified/defined and/or new syntax introduced.
> 
> Thx.
> -Bassam.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lisa Piper [mailto:piper@cadence.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 9:24 PM
> To: Bassam Tabbara; sv-ac@eda-stds.org
> Subject: RE: [sv-ac] 1768 review
> 
> Hi Bassam,
> 
> The real difference between cover property and cover sequence 
> is whether
> the first match or all match semantics is used.  As it turns out, the
> all match semantics only makes sense for sequences, hense cover
> sequence.  But it is still desireable to not count some cases, such as
> reset. 
> 
> I agree that disable iff goes with property_spec and not 
> sequence_expr,
> which is why it needed to be added to the syntax.
> 
> lisa
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bassam Tabbara [mailto:Bassam.Tabbara@synopsys.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 12:18 AM
> To: Lisa Piper; Bassam.tabbara@synopsys.com; sv-ac@eda-stds.org
> Subject: 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 and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
> 
> 
> 

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