Re: [sv-ec] RE: covergroup sample method

Mantis 2137 submitted for this.

Mehdi, please add this to the list for the email vote. I'm not convinced this 
won't become controversial somehow, but it's worth a shot...

--Mike

Rich, Dave wrote:
> It's at the end of 6.23 scope and lifetime.
> 
> Yes, there should a mention that a subroutine_call at the end of a
> sequence match should be considered a procedural context. The BNF
> already allows a method call. Same for the action block of a concurrent
> assertion. Even though the LRM says you can put an assertion outside a
> procedural context to make it a concurrent assertion, its action block
> is still a procedural context.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Burns [mailto:michael.burns@freescale.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 3:00 PM
> To: Rich, Dave
> Cc: john.havlicek@freescale.com; sv-ac@eda.org; sv-ec@eda.org
> Subject: Re: [sv-ec] RE: covergroup sample method
> 
> 
> This sounds like an inconsistency in the LRM; Dave, in what section is
> this 
> restriction? I will submit a Mantis for this.
> 
> If there are any concerns about lifting the restriction entirely,
> another 
> approach would be to specify that the attached subroutine call to an
> assertion 
> counts as a procedural context, albeit a tiny and highly restricted one.
> Note 
> that the LRM also says that tasks are called from procedural blocks
> (13.5), so 
> the inconsistency may extend beyond object handle dereferences.
> 
> --Mike
> 
> Rich, Dave wrote:
>> There is a current LRM restriction that limits class handle references
>> (de-reference actually) to procedural context. The restriction is
>> primarily to prevent class handle dereferences before the class has
> been
>> constructed at time 0.
>>
>> I would be in favor of lifting this restriction and leaving it to the
>> user since these kinds of error are easy to detect and fix.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: John Havlicek [mailto:john.havlicek@freescale.com] 
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 10:08 AM
>> To: Rich, Dave
>> Cc: sv-ac@eda.org; sv-ec@eda.org
>> Subject: covergroup sample method
>>
>> Hi Dave:
>>
>> Why would it not be legal to call a covergroup sample method from a
>> sequence or property?
>>
>> We have
>>
>>    16.10 Calling subroutines on match of a sequence
>>
>>    Tasks, task methods, void functions, void function methods, and
>>    system tasks can be called at the end of a successful non-empty
>>    match of a sequence. The subroutine calls, like local variable
>>    assignments, appear in the comma-separated list that follows the
>>    sequence. The subroutine calls are said to be attached to the
>>    sequence. It shall be an error to attach a subroutine call or any
>>    sequence_match_item to a sequence that admits an empty match. The
>>    sequence and the list that follows are enclosed in parentheses.
>>
>>
>> I thought that the covergroup sample method would count as a
>> void function method.  Am I being naive?
>>
>> J.H.
>>
>>> I don't think you would be allowed to call a covergroup sample method
>>> from a sequence or property.  You could call a function that copies
>> the
>>> local variable and does the sample for you.
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org]
>>>> On Behalf Of Michael Burns
>>>> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2007 4:39 PM
>>>> To: Scott, David
>>>> Cc: SV-EC
>>>> Subject: Re: [sv-ec] covergroup sample method
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The problem is that we want to trigger coverage from within
>> assertions
>>>> using
>>>> data in assertion local variables. I don't believe we are allowed to
>>>> declare
>>>> covergroups within assertions.
>>>>
>>>> --Mike
> 
> 


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