Jonathan,
I may be too close to our implementation, and maybe too close to the
covergroup chapter having studied it for a few years now, but the
question never occurred to me. And I still don't find anything
ambiguous now that you mention it.
The option.per_instance has been recently clarified as a cue for the
requirement of saving an instance in the coverage database. To my way
of thinking, the use of multiple instances of a given covergroup has an
implication only for the aggregation of coverage: multiple instances
will be aggregated into the "overall coverage information for the
covergroup type" (LRM's words). I don't think there is an implication
that covergroup instances interact in any way except with regard to
this "overall coverage", which is some kind of aggregation. The 2009
LRM did add
type_option.merge_instances to allow a couple of
different ways to aggregate instances into the covergroup type.
Your question seems to imply that covergroup instances might interact
with each other in how bins are incremented. The bin increment -- not
least because sample() is an instance method -- is entirely local to
the covergroup instance. Whether there is a bin associated with the
type is really just an artifact of aggregation: with
type_option.merge_instances==1, the type can indeed appear to have a
bin; with type_option.merge_instances==0, the type probably does not
(although I suppose a tool could do report one if it chose.)
Anyway, to answer your last two questions directly, from my perspective:
Given that it is not a per-instance
covergroup, did we increment the "rise" bin?
No.
It may be that the answer to this is so blindingly
obvious to coverage experts that it isn't worth saying,
but it would be nice if the LRM were explicit about it.
Or have I missed something?
I'm not sure. The answer was blindingly obvious to me, but sometimes
clarifications don't hurt. We can see what others have to say ...
Cheers,
David Scott
jonathan.bromley@doulos.com wrote:
hi EC,
I know it's too late to change anything now, but this question arose
in discussion here recently and I can't find clarification of it in any
version of the LRM so it might be worth asking.
How are transition coverpoints incremented when multiple
instances of a covergroup exist? It seems reasonable to
assume that, if the covergroup's per_instance option is true,
each CG instance detects transitions as seen by just that
one instance alone. But what happens when the CG's
per-instance option is false?
For example:
module User;
class Data;
bit b;
covergroup cg;
coverpoint b { bins rise = (0 => 1); }
endgroup
function new(bit B);
b = B;
cg = new;
endfunction
endclass
initial begin
Data d;
d = new(0);
d.cg.sample();
d = new(1);
d.cg.sample();
end
endmodule
At the end of this code we have created one instance of
the covergroup that sampled b==0, and then a second
instance that sampled b==1. Given that it is not a per-instance
covergroup, did we increment the "rise" bin?
It may be that the answer to this is so blindingly
obvious to coverage experts that it isn't worth saying,
but it would be nice if the LRM were explicit about it.
Or have I missed something?
Thanks
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by
MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Received on Fri Aug 8 14:56:09 2008