Subject: RE: [sv-cc] Assertion API issues
From: Joao Geada (Joao.Geada@synopsys.com)
Date: Thu Apr 17 2003 - 08:51:42 PDT
Francoise,
I did not say to remove the directive property. What I said is that we should
remove the vpi enumerations
vpiAssumeAssertion
vpiRestrictAssertion
and remove any mentions to these directives from the assertion API (ie remove those
entries from section 27.3.2)
I believe this would be sufficient to address the issue you raised *and* would
have minimal impact on the LRM.
Joao
==============================================================================
Joao Geada, PhD Principal Engineer Verif Tech Group
Synopsys, Inc TEL: (508) 263-8083
377 Simarano Drive, Suite 300, FAX: (508) 263-8069
Marlboro, MA 01752, USA
==============================================================================
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-sv-cc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-cc@eda.org]On Behalf Of
Francoise Martinolle
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 10:24 AM
To: joao.geada@synopsys.COM; sv-cc@eda.org
Subject: [sv-cc] Assertion API issues
Joao,
If we remove the directive property on an assertion. I think that we should create a new object type called vpiCover to represent the cover statement.
Unless an assert statement also represents cover statements?
Let me know what you intended to represent at that time.
Also I think that there is a problem in the VPI object diagram.
The object listed there is property, but we only iterate on assertions.
Should this not be an assertion in the diagram?
Francoise
'
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Apr 17 2003 - 08:53:22 PDT