Re: [sv-ac] updated cover sequence proposal

From: Brad Pierce <Brad.Pierce_at_.....>
Date: Wed Jul 11 2007 - 08:27:57 PDT
"A.6.10" --> "A.2.10"

---

In the following, better 'shall' than 'should' (two occurrences) --
 
Each sub-attempt of a sequence_expr that completes its match without the
occurrence of the disable iff condition should count towards the all
match total for that attempt. Any sub-attempt that is in progress and
not yet complete at the occurrence of the disable iff condition should
be aborted.

---

In the following maybe better "are" instead of "should be" and "is"
instead of "shall be".  (But definitely not both "should" and "shall".)

The difference between the two categories is that for sequence
coverage(i.e. cover sequence), all-matches per attempt should be
reported, whereas for property coverage (i.e. cover property), at most
one match per attempt shall be reported.

---

[ In reply to http://www.eda-stds.org/sv-ac/hm/4261.html .]

-- Brad


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Received on Wed Jul 11 08:28:24 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jul 11 2007 - 08:28:30 PDT