[sv-ec] RE: [sv-bc] Query related to method 'get_inst_coverage()'

Sandeep,

The LRM states that for such a covergroup embedded in a class,
there is automatically one instance created, whose name is
identical to the covergroup name.

Thus the call to "cov.get_inst_coverage()" is legal in your example.

Regards,
Doug

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@server.eda.org]
On Behalf Of Sandeep Dasgupta
> Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 6:14 AM
> To: sv-ac@server.eda-stds.org; sv-bc@server.eda-stds.org;
sv-ec@server.eda-stds.org
> Cc: Sandeep Dasgupta
> Subject: [sv-bc] Query related to method 'get_inst_coverage()'
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I have the following three queries for your kind consideration,
> 
> 1.Consider the test case,
>     module A  ;
>     class B;
>           covergroup cov;
>           endgroup
>          function void fun(  );
>             if(  cov.get_inst_coverage > 0 ) begin
>             end
>         endfunction
>     endclass
>     endmodule
> 
> As per IEEE Std 1800-2005, section 18.7,
> The coverage method get_inst_coverage is not a static method .
> "the get_inst_coverage() method returns the coverage of the specific
> instance on which it is invoked; thus, it can  only be invoked via the
.
> operator."
> But in the above case it has been invoked on a covergroup, cov. So it
> seems to violate the LRM.
> But most of the simulators let the test case  pass.So please suggest
> what would be the ideal behaviour.
> 
> Thanks and Regards,
> Sandeep Dasgupta.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.