RE: [sv-cc] typo in sv_vpi_user.h vpiCoverMax vs vpiCoveredMax

Thanks for an answer, Can You fill mantis for this ?
 
Radek

  _____  

From: Bresticker, Shalom [mailto:shalom.bresticker@intel.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 12:56 PM
To: Radosław Nawrot; sv-cc@eda.org
Subject: RE: [sv-cc] typo in sv_vpi_user.h vpiCoverMax vs vpiCoveredMax



I think vpiCoveredMax was probably intended, to be consistent with
vpiCovered and vpiCoveredCount.

This goes back to SV 3.1.

Thanks,

Shalom

From: owner-sv-cc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-cc@eda.org] On Behalf Of Rados?aw
Nawrot
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 12:13
To: sv-cc@eda.org
Subject: [sv-cc] typo in sv_vpi_user.h vpiCoverMax vs vpiCoveredMax

Hi,

I'm looking at sv_vpi_user.h and I see:

/* coverage status properties */

#define vpiCovered 765

#define vpiCoverMax 766

#define vpiCoveredCount 767

Now I'm looking at 40. Code coverage control and API

- Coverage status properties

vpiCovered

vpiCoverMax

vpiCoveredCount

but in further there  is :

vpi_get(vpiCoveredMax, assertion_handle)

vpi_get(vpiCoveredMax, statement_handle)

vpi_get(vpiCoveredMax, signal_handle)

vpi_get(vpiCoveredMax, fsm_handle)

vpi_get(vpiCoveredMax, fsm_state_handle)

Which type is proper:

vpiCoverMax (most of places including header)

vpiCoveredMax (only one place but fits another names)

?

Regards,

Radek


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and 
dangerous content by  <http://www.mailscanner.info/> MailScanner, and is 
believed to be clean. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.