Re: [sv-ac] RE: [sv-ec] Mantis 2149 - Covergroups sample method with arguments

As far as item #1 is concerned, I would like to offer the
following alternative.

   covergroup ct;
      function sample(int x);   // overrides the builtin method

I assume the reason why this was not proposed is that you don't
want to allow something like the following? I didn't notice anything
in the LRM what would disallow using @(posedge clk) and the builtin
strobe() method together today. Maybe this was an oversight in the current
LRM. We should decide which way it should be, as part of this mantis item
and make it more explicit.

   covergroup ct @(posedge clk);
      function sample(int x);


Neil



Arturo Salz wrote On 11/12/07 12:13 PM,:
> Scott,
> 
> My comments inlined below.
> 
>             Arturo
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> *From:* David Scott [mailto:david_scott@mentor.com]
> 
> Arturo:
> 
> Some reaction from the Mentor covergroup team and Gordon (Dave R and Ray
> not represented):
> 
> #1.  Syntax.  There was a preference to drop the @, to allow a
> declaration like so:
> 
> covergroup ct function sample(int x);
> 
> The issue is that "@ function" seems like a cue to wait on an event
> related to the function, or that it seems somehow related to event-based
> sampling.
> 
> We’re open to syntactical changes.
> 
> The reason for the “@ function” syntax was to use an operator to
> separate the coverage declaration from the sampling method declaration;
> it seems more readable this way. We’d like to hear from other people.



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