As
I recall from the committee conference call when we discussed
issue 105, the reason this was classified as “non-trivial” was
simply because it needed a Mantis item created and a proposal written
to change
the wording in 19.3. The committee agreed that although there was
nothing
technically wrong with the current wording in 19.3, the wording could
be made
more clear (and consistent with 19.5) by changing “variable or an
expression”
to “integral expression”
Hi
Dave,
Do
you think we need to match the following two lines in this
context?
"A
coverage point can cover a variable or an expression."
"A
coverage point specifies an integral expression that is to
be covered."
I
believe the second is the generic one.
From:
owner-sv-ec@eda.org
[mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org] On Behalf Of Scott, David
Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 3:02 AM
To: sv-ec@eda.org
Subject: [sv-ec] ballot issue #105
There
is no mention of nets/wires being specified in the coverage model.
Refer last
line.
That's
entered against 19.2. The last line includes the phrase "Associate
bins
with sets of values, transitions, or cross products".
I
don't see what's non-trivial about this. It looks trivial. In fact,
I think the current wording of the draft standard is just fine.
"Sets of values" (for coverpoint bins) are specified as expressions,
and net identifiers may be expressions, too. 6.5 and 6.7 are clear
enough
about what nets are and how they may be declared with integral data
types.
I
recommend we do nothing about this one.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner,
and is
believed to be clean.
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner,
and is
believed to be clean.