RE: [sv-ac] idea of multi matches for cover

I think that here we hit some kind of misunderstanding.
I mean stmt like:
	cover property(a ##[1:$] b); 

For single a occurence above have to be checked and raported till EOS, while

	assert property (a ##[1:$] b);
Will not be checked and raported after first occuerence of a ##N b

So for cover we may get huge output, and simulation slowdown much bigger
than for assertion.

I just want to have the way to switch raports for "extra" passes of
assertion.

DANiel

-----Original Message-----
From: Neil.Korpusik@Sun.COM [mailto:Neil.Korpusik@Sun.COM] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 7:29 PM
To: danielm
Cc: sv-ac@eda-stds.org
Subject: Re: [sv-ac] idea of multi matches for cover

Hi Daniel,

I suggest that you review 18.3, which describes the strobe option for
covergroups. Conceptually this is similar to what you are suggesting.

Neil



danielm wrote On 11/20/07 04:13 AM,:
> LRM wants that cover in contrast to assert and assume should react on 
> all matches of sequence. This aproach may have big impact on 
> simulation performance - in some case properties used in cover wil 
> have to be tracked from start point till end of simulation. Maybe 
> there should be way to turn off such extra passes - similarly to 
> switching off vacuous passes (see mantis  0001361) Such possibility to 
> turn on off extra passes should be added to covers but also to assert 
> and assume.
>  
> 
> LRM about cover directive> In addition, statement_or_null gets 
> executed for every match. If there are multiple matches at the same 
> time, the statement gets executed multiple times, one for each match.
> 
>  
> 
> DANiel
> 
> 
> --
> 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, and is
believed to be clean.