Arturo > I?m sorry Jonathan, but the answer did seem obvious to me as well. > Perhaps you can point out what part of the LRM may have mislead you. No need to apologize - there is an ever-present possibility that I was simply being dense. I don't think there is anything misleading in the LRM. But there is nothing I could find that explicitly says where or how a covergroup stores the history needed for transition coverage. I had - wrongly, but perhaps understandably - assumed that a covergroup with per_instance==0 has only one static set of bins for all its instances, and that led me to question whether the transition history was type-wide. The new LRM text relating to merge_instances leaves little room for doubt. Thanks again to everyone for your patience. -- Jonathan Bromley Consultant DOULOS - Developing Design Know-how VHDL * Verilog * SystemC * e * Perl * Tcl/Tk * Project Services Doulos Ltd. Church Hatch, 22 Market Place, Ringwood, Hampshire, BH24 1AW, UK Tel: +44 (0)1425 471223 Email: jonathan.bromley@doulos.com Fax: +44 (0)1425 471573 Web: http://www.doulos.com This message may contain personal views which are not the views of Doulos Ltd., unless specifically stated. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Sun Aug 10 00:31:47 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Aug 10 2008 - 00:34:08 PDT