RE: [sv-ec] Embedded covergroups - mantis #1239

Ray,
 
Thanks for taking care of this.
 
Swapnajit.


________________________________

	From: Ryan, Ray [mailto:Ray_Ryan@mentor.com] 
	Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 12:16 AM
	To: Swapnajit Chakraborti; sv-ec@eda.org
	Subject: RE: [sv-ec] Embedded covergroups - mantis #1239
	
	
	Swapnajit,
	 
	I agree that with the modified syntax, the special case syntax
for assignment
	to a 'covergroup_variable_identifier' is no longer needed. The
more general
	rule for a 'variable_identifier' is sufficient.
	 
	I have updated the proposal to delete the special syntax rule
for 'covergroup_variable'.
	 
	Ray


________________________________

		From: Swapnajit Chakraborti [mailto:swapnaj@cadence.com]

		Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 11:58 PM
		To: Ryan, Ray; sv-ec@eda.org
		Subject: RE: [sv-ec] Embedded covergroups - mantis #1239
		
		

		Ray, 

		I have a question regarding the following: 

		>Finally, there is a syntax correction such that the
call to 
		>'new' can be ommitted in the declaration of a
covergroup 
		>variable for a non-embedded covergroup. I.E. a regular 
		>covergroup variable can be declared without
instantiating 
		>(constructing) the covergroup in the variable
declaration. 

		The above syntax is already supported by the first
option on RHS of the 
		following rule, unless we say that for declaring
covergroup variables one has to choose 
		the  rule with covergroup prefix only. 

		variable_decl_assignment ::= 
		variable_identifier { variable_dimension } [ =
expression ]  <---- This will also enable "cg cg_inst;" kind of decl 
		| .. 
		| [ covergroup_variable_identifier ] = new [ (
list_of_arguments ) ]15  


		I agree what you recommended will rectify the last
option of the above rule 
		to handle "cg cg_inst" kind of scenario. My only point
was this is already 
		handled by an existing option in the rule and we are
allowing redundancy in the BNF. 

		Thx, 
		Swapnajit. 

		>-----Original Message----- 
		>From: owner-sv-ec@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org
<mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org> ] On 
		>Behalf Of Ryan, Ray 
		>Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 4:28 AM 
		>To: sv-ec@eda.org 
		>Subject: [sv-ec] Embedded covergroups - mantis #1239 
		> 
		>Attached is a proposal for Mantis #1239. 
		> 
		>The proposal 'clarifies' that a covergroup declared
within a 
		>class is an 'embedded' covergroup. It makes the
embedded 
		>covergroup TYPE anonymous. 
		>The embedded covergroup declaration also implicitly
creates a 
		>covergroup variable (of the anonymous type). This
replaces a 
		>number of special rules regarding implicit variable 
		>declaration and limitations on the usage of an
'embedded' 
		>covergroup type (the restriction are not needed since
the type 
		>is not visable). 
		> 
		>There also was a special syntax (and note) that allows
the 
		>variable name to be omitted (implicit) in a variable 
		>declaration of an embedded covergroup type. This
optional 
		>syntax can be removed since variables of embedded
covergroups 
		>are now always implicitly declared - and cannot be
explicitly declared. 
		> 
		>Finally, there is a syntax correction such that the
call to 
		>'new' can be ommitted in the declaration of a
covergroup 
		>variable for a non-embedded covergroup. I.E. a regular 
		>covergroup variable can be declared without
instantiating 
		>(constructing) the covergroup in the variable
declaration. 
		> 
		>- Ray 
		>