RE: [sv-ec] Covergroup option assignment - Mantis #1240

Arturo,
 
In the proposal, I have updated the existing example (following the
paragraph) to illustrate this 
assignment of these options.
 
Ray


________________________________

	From: Arturo Salz [mailto:Arturo.Salz@synopsys.com] 
	Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 11:55 AM
	To: Ryan, Ray; sv-ec@eda.org
	Subject: RE: [sv-ec] Covergroup option assignment - Mantis #1240
	
	

	Ray,

	 

	Perhaps the proposal should explicitly state that these options
(auto_bin_max, ...) do not need to be a constant. That is, explicitly
allow the following case:

	 

	covergroup foo (int maxA, int maxB);

	    a : coverpoint a_var  { option.auto_bin_max = maxA; }

	    b : coverpoint b_var  { option.auto_bin_max = maxB; }

	    AxB : cross a, b ;

	endgroup

	...

	initial begin

	   foo f1 = new( 10, 20 );

	   foo f2 = new( 5, 6 )

	end

	 

	In this case auto_bin_max is set in the declaration but its
actual value is determined by each call to the constructor, which can
indeed be different for each covergroup instance.

	 

	            Arturo

	 

	-----Original Message-----
	From: owner-sv-ec@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org] On Behalf
Of Ryan, Ray
	Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 3:01 PM
	To: sv-ec@eda.org
	Subject: [sv-ec] Covergroup option assignment - Mantis #1240

	 

	Attached is a proposal for Mantis 1240.

	 

	The proposal only allows assignment of the 'auto_bin_max' and

	'detect_overlap'

	options in a covergroup or coverpoint declaration. IE. These
options

	cannot be dynanically assigned after the covergroup instance is
created.

	 

	In the previous SV-EC meeting, it was AGREED that these options
are

	applied at the time the instance is created and that dynamic
assignment

	of these options (after the instance is created) would NOT
change the

	instance.

	 

	There was discussion that it was desirable to dynamically assign
these

	options and then expect that the new values would apply to any

	subsequently created instance of the covergroup. The assumption
in the

	meeting was that these are TYPE options. However, these are
per-instance

	options. Therefore, dynamic assignment of these options (that
doesn't

	change the instance) is only confusing / misleading. Thus this
proposal

	only allows assignment in the declaration.

	 

	- Ray