Arturo, Neil -- Arturo Salz wrote: > I agree > that the LRM is not explicit in this area - it does state that the > sample ,method must be used to trigger a cover-group that doesn't > specify an event, but the converse restriction (a covergroup that > specifies an event may not call the sample method) is not listed in the > current version of the LRM. I believe this restriction makes sense. > This last mentioned is a restriction I would oppose. There is no harm in allowing both procedural sampling and triggered sampling; the covergroup is arguably more flexible if so. If it makes no sense in someone's methodology, they need not use it. But there is nothing ambiguous in allowing both -- even the strobe option is not such a conceptual problem: necessary in triggered sampling to guarantee stable values, while in procedural sampling, the sample call itself can be placed precisely as the user wishes (most probably among blocking assignments.) I would be in favor of stating that the strobe option has no effect on procedural sampling. -- David S -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Wed Nov 14 09:58:59 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Nov 14 2007 - 09:59:14 PST