That was Ray Ryan's request, to remove the language about "bins". The
language about state bin values (as opposed to transition bin
sequences) refers to values rather than bins in the paragraph I am
proposing to change -- so it is appropriate.
Just to make the whole issue clear:
coverpoint p {
bins t[] = ( 1=>2=>[3:4]=>4 );
ignore_bins i = ( 2=>3 );
}
In this case, there are potentially 2 coverage bins:
t[1=>2=>3=>4] and t[1=>2=>4=>4]. However, because
the first contains the ignored sequence, that sequence itself must be
removed. By implication, the bin t[1=>2=>3=>4] is excluded --
so that the coverage point contains only 1 coverage bin rather than the
2 it seems to have at first glance. There is already language in the
subsequent paragraph to describe the effect of bins being emptied
because their values or transitions/sequences [*] overlap with ignored
bins:
The above may result in a bin that is
associated with no values or transitions. Such empty bins are excluded
from coverage (see 18.11).
[*] Re-reading it, I sense the specification is a little loose on the
language "transition" vs. "sequence". 18.5.1 uses the word "sequence"
to refer to what is associated with a transition bin, while 18.5.4 and
18.5.5 as currently written use "transition". Maybe I should propose
to change "transition" to "sequence" in the paragraph I quoted above?
Dave S
Bresticker, Shalom wrote:
Dave,
I am not
very familiar
with this area, but I see that the original uses ‘bin’ whereas the
proposal uses ‘sequence’. Does it matter?
Otherwise,
it looks
fine.
Thanks,
Shalom
Old
wording:
For
transition bins, the ignored sequence invalidates
any coverage transition bin whose
sequence cannot be matched without also matching the ignored transition
bin
sequence for any sample
value. (For example, the ignored bin “i = ( 2=>3 )” would
invalidate the coverage bin “t =
( 1=>2=>3=>4)”).
Proposed
new wording:
For
transition bins, any covered sequence is removed
when it contains an ignored sequence. (For example, the ignored
sequence
2=>3 would remove the covered sequence 1=>2=>3=>4.)
That is
almost suspiciously simpler, but Ray & I agree it conveys the same
information.
Please respond with your opinion if you have one; I'll update the
proposal
(with similar changes for illegal bins) as soon as it appears to have
converged
by e-mail.
Thanks,
Dave Scott -- Mentor
Graphics
--
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.
Received on Tue Jul 10 10:15:42 2007