>From: "Bresticker, Shalom" <shalom.bresticker@intel.com> >Maybe I was not clear. > >If I have a loop which executes 16 times, and the loop contains a unique >case construct, then that unique case will execute 16 times. However, >each iteration of the unique case should be considered separately from >the other iterations. I don't want the violation of each iteration to >cause that of the previous iteration to be forgotten. SV-AC has a >proposal for dealing with assertions in loops in Mantis 1995. Greg understands what you are describing. The suggestion is not that the next execution of the unique/priority discard previous violations. The violations would be queued up and kept. Up to 16 violations might be kept, to be reported if they are not discarded first. They would only be discarded if the process wakes up and executes again. While it would presumably execute the loop and the unique/priority construct again, that is not what would cause the violations to be discarded. That is caused by the process waking up again before the violations have been reported. If it executes the loop again and sees the same violations, then the new violations would be queued up to be recorded. If it doesn't see the violations, then this was a glitch that went away. However, if it is not a combinational process, it might be waking up and executing something different. It might not be re-evaluating the same thing with the violations gone. Then actual violations are getting lost. Steven Sharp sharp@cadence.com -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Fri Oct 12 19:01:21 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Oct 12 2007 - 19:01:42 PDT