All, Dmitry rise a good point that in most cover properties we expect sequences to be strong. Once we change the default semantics of plain sequential property from strong to weak, many cover property will lose their meaning. This backward compatibility problem is serious and we must do something about it. We thought about several options: 1. Leave the default semantics strong - which mean that assertions will need "weak" in many cases or that tools will continue to ignore failures at the end of simulation. 2. Make a distinction between the cover (expect?) statement and the assume, assert statement, for the former use strong default and for the later use weak. This is problematic in case that not is used. 3. try to define strong and weak for properties and then define cover property to always be strong. The disadvantage here is that we will not be able to specify cover properties like (eventually always a) that may be useful in formal. Doron --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel Israel (74) Limited This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Mon Sep 24 05:58:44 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Sep 24 2007 - 05:59:06 PDT