Hi John, Time of attempt result is always returned so we do get the time of disable as you state. For the second point below, vacuous success is disjoint. This and others like 1361 have the appropriate lrm cleanup like the missing CBs. THX. -Bassam -----Original Message----- From: owner-sv-ac@eda-stds.org <owner-sv-ac@eda-stds.org> To: Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.COM <Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.COM> CC: Manisha_Kulshrestha@mentor.com <Manisha_Kulshrestha@mentor.com>; sv-ac@verilog.org <sv-ac@verilog.org> Sent: Fri Jun 16 05:56:19 2006 Subject: Re: [sv-ac] FW: #805 Hi Ed: > Should it say that in the case of disabled evaluation it is the time > when it was disabled? Rather than just succeeded or failed? Is it useful > to report disabled time likely to be the start time in many cases?) I think that for a disabled attempt the time when it was disabled should be reported. > Also, under succeeded, does it cover vacuous success?=20 I don't know about this. The callbacks are mimicking the classification of outcomes of evaluation attempts. Is the intention that success be a superset of vacuous success? Or is the intention that success be disjoint from vacuous success? Once we understand this, I think it will be clear how to adjust the text. Best regards, John H. > X-Authentication-Warning: server.eda.org: majordom set sender to owner-sv-ac@verilog.org using -f > X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 > Content-class: urn:content-classes:message > Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 07:39:22 -0700 > Thread-Topic: [sv-ac] FW: #805 > thread-index: AcZ7ThVqTw63yAmDQuWM3vGnujgnEQKYVmWQAPRdsJMAYggTEA== > From: "Eduard Cerny" <Eduard.Cerny@synopsys.com> > X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Jun 2006 14:39:23.0714 (UTC) FILETIME=[55CD9220:01C68B09] > X-Virus-Status: Clean > Sender: owner-sv-ac@verilog.org > > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C68B09.5562DBF7 > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="us-ascii" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > Manisha,=20 > =20 > the last statement in the document you sent says: > =20 > - cbAssertionSuccess, cbAssertionVacuousSuccess, > cbAssertionDisabledEvaluation and cbAssertionFailure: cb_time is the > time when the assertion succeeded or failed. > > =20 > > Should it say that in the case of disabled evaluation it is the time > when it was disabled? Rather than just succeeded or failed? Is it useful > to report disabled time likely to be the start time in many cases?) > Also, under succeeded, does it cover vacuous success?=20 > > =20 > > Best regards, > > ed > > > ________________________________ > > From: owner-sv-ac@verilog.org [mailto:owner-sv-ac@verilog.org] > On Behalf Of Kulshrestha, Manisha > Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 11:50 AM > To: sv-ac@verilog.org > Subject: [sv-ac] FW: #805 > =09 > =09 > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kulshrestha, Manisha > Sent: Thu 6/1/2006 12:17 PM > To: 'sv-ac@eda.org' > Subject: #805 > =09 > =09 > Hi All, > =09 > I have incorporated most of the feedback in my updated proposal > (attached here). Please send your feedback. The original proposals are > still on mantis in case you want to compare. The main change in this > document is that disabled is not a success and thus very few changes are > needed in the LRM. > =09 > Thanks. > Manisha > =09 > 805: disable iff condition should produce vacuous match > Lisa: I agree with this too - failure counters do not > make > sense for coverage. > failure counters do not make sense for > coverage. > Joseph: yes > Doron: I think that disabled should not count as a > success=20 > in coverage. we need to change is the > report of the=20 > number of failures in coverage > Bassam: yes > Dmitry: I don't think the failure should be reported for > coverage at all. > Surrendra: yes > Ed: No success with disable to be reported. > Dmitry: I agree with the definition of the vacuous > success. > According to our discussion about the > property > coverage definition, there is no meaning > in disabled > coverage success, since it should not > count as a > coverage event at all.=20 > Therefore the suggestions concerning > Clause 17.13.3, page 288, > Clause 29.4.3, page 482, Clause 29.4.2, > page 481, > and Annex I are not relevant. > I agree with the proposal concerning > Clause 28.4.2. > Volkan: yes > =09 > =09 > =09 > > > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C68B09.5562DBF7 > Content-Type: text/html; > charset="us-ascii" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> > <HTML><HEAD><TITLE>FW: #805</TITLE> > <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; = > charset=3Dus-ascii"> > <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2900.2873" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD> > <BODY> > <DIV><SPAN class=3D926093714-08062006><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = > color=3D#0000ff=20 > size=3D4>Manisha, </FONT></SPAN></DIV> > <DIV><SPAN class=3D926093714-08062006><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = > color=3D#0000ff=20 > size=3D4></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> > <DIV><SPAN class=3D926093714-08062006><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = > color=3D#0000ff=20 > size=3D4>the last statement in the document you sent = > says:</FONT></SPAN></DIV> > <DIV><SPAN class=3D926093714-08062006><FONT face=3D"Courier New" = > color=3D#0000ff=20 > size=3D4></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> > <DIV><SPAN class=3D926093714-08062006> > <P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"punctuation-wrap: hanging">— <SPAN=20 > style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: = > Courier">cbAssertionSuccess</SPAN>, <SPAN=20 > style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: = > Courier">cbAssertionVacuousSuccess,=20 > cbAssertionDisabledEvaluation and </SPAN><SPAN=20 > style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 9pt; FONT-FAMILY: Courier">cbAssertionFailure: = > cb_time=20 > </SPAN>is the time when the assertion succeeded or failed.</P> > <P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"punctuation-wrap: hanging"> </P> > <P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"punctuation-wrap: hanging"><SPAN=20 > class=3D926093714-08062006><FONT face=3D"Courier New" color=3D#0000ff = > size=3D4>Should it=20 > say that in the case of disabled evaluation it is the time when it was = > disabled?=20 > Rather than just succeeded or failed? Is it useful to report disabled = > time=20 > likely to be the start time in many cases?) Also, under succeeded, does = > it cover=20 > vacuous success? </FONT></SPAN></P> > <P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"punctuation-wrap: hanging"><SPAN=20 > class=3D926093714-08062006><FONT face=3D"Courier New" color=3D#0000ff=20 > size=3D4></FONT></SPAN> </P> > <P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"punctuation-wrap: hanging"><SPAN=20 > class=3D926093714-08062006><FONT face=3D"Courier New" color=3D#0000ff = > size=3D4>Best=20 > regards,</FONT></SPAN></P> > <P class=3DMsoNormal style=3D"punctuation-wrap: hanging"><SPAN=20 > class=3D926093714-08062006><FONT face=3D"Courier New" color=3D#0000ff=20 > size=3D4>ed</FONT></SPAN></P></SPAN></DIV><BR> > <BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20 > style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px = > solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> > <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader lang=3Den-us dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft> > <HR tabIndex=3D-1> > <FONT face=3DTahoma size=3D2><B>From:</B> owner-sv-ac@verilog.org=20 > [mailto:owner-sv-ac@verilog.org] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Kulshrestha,=20 > Manisha<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, June 06, 2006 11:50 AM<BR><B>To:</B>=20 > sv-ac@verilog.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> [sv-ac] FW: = > #805<BR></FONT><BR></DIV> > <DIV></DIV><!-- Converted from text/plain format --><BR><BR><BR> > <P><FONT size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: Kulshrestha,=20 > Manisha<BR>Sent: Thu 6/1/2006 12:17 PM<BR>To: = > 'sv-ac@eda.org'<BR>Subject:=20 > #805<BR><BR><BR>Hi All,<BR><BR>I have incorporated most of the = > feedback in my=20 > updated proposal (attached here). Please send your feedback. The = > original=20 > proposals are still on mantis in case you want to compare. The main = > change in=20 > this document is that disabled is not a success and thus very few = > changes are=20 > needed in the LRM.<BR><BR>Thanks.<BR>Manisha<BR><BR>805: disable iff = > condition=20 > should produce vacuous match<BR>Lisa: =20 > I agree with this too - = > failure=20 > counters do not make<BR> =20 > =20 > sense for=20 > coverage.<BR> =20 > =20 > failure counters do not = > make sense=20 > for coverage.<BR>Joseph: =20 > yes<BR>Doron: I think = > that=20 > disabled should not count as a=20 > success <BR> =20 > =20 > in coverage. we need to = > change is=20 > the report of the <BR> =20 > =20 > number of failures in=20 > coverage<BR>Bassam: = > yes<BR>Dmitry:=20 > I don't think the failure = > should be=20 > reported for coverage at = > all.<BR>Surrendra: =20 > yes<BR>Ed: = > =20 > No success with disable to = > be=20 > reported.<BR>Dmitry: I = > agree with=20 > the definition of the vacuous=20 > success.<BR> =20 > =20 > According to our discussion = > about=20 > the property<BR> =20 > =20 > coverage definition, there = > is no=20 > meaning in disabled<BR> =20 > =20 > coverage success, since it = > should=20 > not count as a<BR> =20 > =20 > coverage event at=20 > all. <BR> =20 > =20 > Therefore the suggestions=20 > concerning<BR> =20 > =20 > Clause 17.13.3, page=20 > 288,<BR> =20 > =20 > Clause 29.4.3, page 482, = > Clause=20 > 29.4.2, page 481,<BR> =20 > =20 > and Annex I are not=20 > relevant.<BR> =20 > =20 > I agree with the proposal=20 > concerning Clause 28.4.2.<BR>Volkan:=20 > =20 > yes<BR><BR><BR></FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML> > > ------_=_NextPart_001_01C68B09.5562DBF7--Received on Fri Jun 16 07:32:18 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Jun 16 2006 - 07:32:22 PDT