Subject: RE: [sv-ec] Errata: 3.1a Draft2, Section 20
From: David W. Smith (dwsmith@synopsys.com)
Date: Fri Feb 20 2004 - 11:40:34 PST
Hi Sandeep,
Thanks for your review and consideration of SV 3.1a. Just an update on where we are in the development of SystemVerilog. Draft 5 is
currently being completed based on all of the language design and review that has been proceeding since last June. All language
design and all of the technical reviews for 3.1a are now complete. The current review cycle we just closed was meant to focus on
editorial issues as we close the 3.1a revision of the LRM. Clearly some technical content has slipped in but, for the most part, the
changes have been editorial.
Each of the committees is also collecting technical errata items and suggestions for future enhancements. I have to confess that,
due to the current pressure of getting the LRM out, I have not been thinking or collecting enhancements (being the current
bottleneck on getting the errata to the editor).
It is now time to do so. Can you please send me an email with just the enhancement requests you would like to see so that I can add
them to the Future enhancements list we keep on the reflector?
Regards
David
David W. Smith
Synopsys Scientist
Synopsys, Inc.
Synopsys Technology Park
2025 NW Cornelius Pass Road
Hillsboro, OR 97124
Voice: 503.547.6467
Main: 503.547.6000
FAX: 503.547.6906
Email: david.smith@synopsys.com
<http://www.synopsys.com> http://www.synopsys.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-ec@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org] On Behalf Of Sandeep Pagey
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 12:54 AM
To: Arturo Salz; sv-ec@eda.org
Subject: RE: [sv-ec] Errata: 3.1a Draft2, Section 20
Arturo,
Thanks for your response.
I agree with your view that the issues related to definition of covergroups in various name-spaces and behavior of sampling using
.sample() method is implicitly clear. I thought that it might help if stated explicitly too.
Section 20.6
The "goal" option is mentioned in the table. The document does not clarify what is to be done when goal is met. Even though it is
likely to be implementation specific, some minimal details about the default behavior can be included in the LRM.
Suggestion: An implementation specific information message is displayed whenever a goal is met for the first time. The message must
contain details of the covergroup/covergroup instance for which the goal has been met.
You misunderstood the "goal" option. The "goal" option does not result in any particular action during simulation, it merely allows
users to specify a target for particular coverage items. The coverage report will indicate if a particular test (or set of tests)
have reached the desired goal. The coverage report is implementation specific.
For the goal option, I was thinking in terms of its utility at run time. From that angle, at a minimum it would be good to give an
indication to the user at run time when goals are met. One possible usefulness would be that this would help users in cutting down a
long testbench to a point where all the coverage goals are met.
These ideas are well motivated. However, I believe it is too late to add new functionality to this version.
I propose we add this request to the list of future enhancements.
In general, how would future enhancements be handled?
Regards,
Sandeep.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Feb 20 2004 - 11:48:13 PST