RE: [sv-ec]e-mail ballot Closes Wednesday February 20 2008, 11:59pm PST

Hi Arturo,

 

Please, see my comments below.

 

Thanks,

Dmitry

 

________________________________

From: owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@server.eda.org] On
Behalf Of Arturo Salz
Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 3:26 AM
To: Mehdi Mohtashemi; sv-ec@server.eda-stds.org
Subject: RE: [sv-ec]e-mail ballot Closes Wednesday February 20 2008,
11:59pm PST

 

Here are my votes.

 

2088  ___ Yes   __X_ No  

http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2088    

 

The proposal allows covergroup declarations but not type declarations -
this seems inconsistent.

The proposal suggests that each checker instance does not create a
different covergroup type or object, which is inconsistent with all
other structural constructs. If indeed covergroup types and objects are
singleton objects (one per checker declaration) then this should be
explicitly stated.

 

 2089  ___ Yes   __X_ No  

http://www.eda.org/svdb/view.php?id=2089   

 

It is not clear how many final procedures are executed per checker
instantiation - one per checker instance or one per checker declaration.

 

[Korchemny, Dmitry] One per checker instance. It is consistent with
checker instantiation semantics. Consider the following example:

 

checker mycheck;

            ...

            final ...

            end

endchecker

 

always @(posedge clk) begin

            ...

            mycheck c1;

end

 

This code is roughly equivalent to:

 

always @(posedge clk) begin

            ...

end

 

final ...

end

 

In general, checkers seems strange. They are structural constructs that
may be instantiated inside procedural code where no other structural
component may be instantiated, but they are also considerable limiting
since they may contain only a few constructs. 

 

[Korchemny, Dmitry] The checkers are similar to concurrent assertions:
if a concurrent assertion is written inside procedural code, it does not
mean that it is executed together with the procedural code, and it has
(almost) the same effect as being written outside the procedural code.
Writing concurrent assertions and checkers inside procedural code is
sort of syntactic sugaring, and it is aimed to improve assertion
usability only.

 


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and 
dangerous content by MailScanner <http://www.mailscanner.info/> , and is

believed to be clean. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

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