Thomas Thatcher wrote: > Hi Gord, > > Time is short. I will modify my proposal to state that only instances > of covergroups may appear within a checker. Definitions of a covergroup > type must occur externally to the checker. I believe that this still > enables my intended use of covergroups, although with a little overhead. > > Will this simplify things for you? It should at least take care of the > type problems. That certainly removes one huge new kind of interaction to worry about. If things remain sufficiently expressible, I think that would be best. > One question for my examples: A covergroup cannot be defined in a > compilation unit scope, correct? Not correct. It is legal to have a covergroup in $unit. $unit contains "{description}" and a "description" can be a "package_item" which can be a covergroup. I don't know of any semantic restriction that would be in play. For example, something like the following trivial case is legal: int x; covergroup C @(x); coverpoint x { bins b = {1,2,3}; bins b2 = {4,5}; } endgroup module top; C c = new; initial begin x = 1; x = 3; end endmodule Gord. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------- Gordon Vreugdenhil 503-685-0808 Model Technology (Mentor Graphics) gordonv@model.com -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Thu Feb 21 14:07:50 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Feb 21 2008 - 14:08:34 PST