Re: [sv-ec] late-breaking covergroup Mantises

From: Neil Korpusik <Neil.Korpusik_at_.....>
Date: Mon Feb 04 2008 - 11:17:26 PST
Forwarding back to the reflector.


David Scott wrote:
> Too late, I expect, for SystemVerilog 2008, we've found some serious 
> issues that arose from our consideration of Mantis 1897 
> (http://eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=1897) -- now completely approved by 
> SV-EC and the Champions.
> 
> Here they are:
> 
>     * The versions of get_coverage with optional "ref" arguments can't
>       (or shouldn't) quite work as currently described:
>       http://eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2242
>     * My interpretation of covergroup option.per_instance leads me to
>       think that post-process coverage merging would be crippled by
>       default if tools actually implemented the standard:
>       http://eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2243
>     * Coverage database behavior implied by the standard is relatively
>       ill-defined, leaving a bunch of questions unanswered, I think:
>       http://eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2244
> 
> -- David Scott, Mentor Graphics
> 
> 
> -- 
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, 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 Mon Feb 4 11:18:18 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Feb 04 2008 - 11:20:03 PST