Re: [sv-ac] FW: Requirements for debugging capabilities

Subject: Re: [sv-ac] FW: Requirements for debugging capabilities
From: Bassam Tabbara (bassam@novas.com)
Date: Fri Sep 27 2002 - 11:27:31 PDT

Hillel, Alain,

[sorry for wide distribution]

I guess you may have missed the last 15 min. of our sv-ac meeting yesterday. In short, we discussed changing the "coverage" reqs to be more about data visibility/access, and less about "API calls". It's a fine line, but the thinking is for sv-ac to define the data (i.e. "return"s) and sv-cc to continue the work in APIs.

There is a few of us on both committees so it's in the works. Tom is slated to take a whack at revamping that "coverage" section in the reqs (with input from DWG I think), and resend those. Right Tom ? Please comment.

-Bassam.

Alain Raynaud wrote:

[I cc sv-cc as this is of interest to both groups; be careful who you reply to - Alain] 
Does anyone else share this concern ?


Yes, definitely! 

Can we add a usage requirement that will prove debugging facilities ?


I'm not sure this can be addressed in the requirements. For instance, in the case of Verilog, waveforms editors and RTL source code viewers quickly became available, but the standard didn't specify those.

The closest requirement I could think of would be to have some dump format for assertions. In theory, if we do our job correctly on the PLI side, you could get callbacks each time a regular expression, starts, finishes, and so on... so that an external debugging tool could display the relevant information to the user.

Alain Raynaud.
Tensilica, Inc.
 
 

Shalom.Bresticker@motorola.com wrote:

-----Original Message-----
From: Miller Hillel-R53776
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 10:56 AM
To: 'sv-ac@eda.org'
Subject: Requirements for debugging capabilities

Hi,

I am very suprised that there is no requirements for sufficient debugging capabilites.

Lately I am finding it very difficult to find/define tools that facilitate for debugging capabilities
that involve regular expressions. Regular expression for temporal languages has been around
for some time now. I would expect that these capabilities would exist by now.

I would hate to find out that a standard language would be developed which inherently could not have
good debugging tools. Afterall the users always spend most of their time debugging.

Does anyone else share this concern ?
Can we add a usage requirement that will prove debugging facilities ?

Hillel

-- 
Dr. Bassam Tabbara
Technical Manager, R&D

Novas Software, Inc.
bassam@novas.com
(408) 467-7893
 

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Sep 27 2002 - 11:29:19 PDT