Thanks. As far as "why would it be future?" - I don't know. I don't understand how the code would know to kill one that is in progress either (meaning, I don't know why it would be in the past either). Do you also agree that assertions that do not span time cannot be impacted by VPI controls? (because the scheduling regions between the assertion evaluation and the VPI execution do not overlap). This means immediate assertions and non-temporal concurrent assertions will never be affected. Lisa ________________________________ From: Bassam Tabbara [mailto:Bassam.Tabbara@synopsys.com] Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 11:28 AM To: Lisa Piper; bassam.tabbara@synopsys.com; sv-ac@eda-stds.org Subject: RE: question on vpiAssertionKill It is a means to have an "id" -- attemptStartTime is the start time of an attempt of assertion. This is used in the clause to get at a unique attempt. Why would it be future ? It is not. Thx. -Bassam. ________________________________ From: Lisa Piper [mailto:piper@cadence.com] Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 6:23 AM To: bassam.tabbara@synopsys.COM; sv-ac@eda-stds.org Subject: question on vpiAssertionKill Bassam (and anyone else with an opinion on this), The standard calls for an argument to vpiAssertionKill that is the "attemptStartTime". Usage example: vpi_control(vpiAssertionKill, assertionHandle, attemptStartTime) - vpiAssertionKill discards the given attempts, but leaves the assertion enabled and does not reset any state used by this assertion (e.g., past() sampling). Can this time be in the past or in the future? Can you provide an example use model for when a use might want to do each? Lisa -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Fri Mar 21 09:59:05 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Mar 21 2008 - 09:59:45 PDT