RE: [Fwd: RE: [sv-cc] SV-CC Meeting minutes for 02/15/2006 -- vpiColumn et. al.]

Hi Francoise,
 
I think that if my (1), (2) below make sense, then in fact (4)'s TODO is
a natural conclusion. There would be no need for notes (at least no
"elaborate" notes), and the Column info would go where it should -- on
expressions. 
 
I fail to see in your writeup:
 a) why these would live (as today) on assertion/sequence/property def
instead of the respective expression that the assertion/... is composed
of, please see (b).
 b) column info discussion: I suspect you are missing that the idea is
to report the *expression* and the column of that expression is an
afterthought. The step report is *not* the more primitive column
printing you describe dissociated from the expression, I think you are
misinterpreting 28.3.2, the idea is indeed to return the expression (and
yes the correct handle).
 c) your comment on vpiLineNo/vpiFile, these exist for anything ...
 
** My previous proposal is much simpler. As far as adding the "No"
suffix yet that would be consistent with legacy VPI naming albeit with
more changes to SV's header (and not the "ok" change of deleting stuff).
 
Thx.
-Bassam.

--
Dr. Bassam Tabbara
Synopsys, Inc.
(650) 584-1973
 

________________________________

From: owner-sv-cc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-cc@eda.org] On Behalf Of
francoise martinolle
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 1:00 PM
To: 'SV-CC'
Subject: RE: [Fwd: RE: [sv-cc] SV-CC Meeting minutes for 02/15/2006 --
vpiColumn et. al.]


I read Bassam's email. I do understand why we have this property on an
assertion handle but I do not
agree with what Bassam says to do (see TODO list).
 
All the "location" properties should remain on the assertion class. They
are properties you can query when an assertion fails or
succeeds to get the "state" of the assertion step.
These properties are in addition to the vpiLineNo and vpiFile properties
which exists for an assertion and 
which provide the assertion declaration line and file information.
 
I think we need to add a couple of notes to describe what vpiColumn and
vpiEndColumn values represent.
This is not obvious.
vpiColumn returnsthe column offset to the vpiStartLine
vpiEndColumn returns the column offset from the vpiEndLine
 
(if the expression which rerpesents the current state f the assertion
attempt spans over a line, vpiStartLine and vpiEndline
return different values.) 
 
I would also propose to chaneg the name of vpiStartLine and vpioEndLine
to be more consistent with vpiLineNo
(Basically add "No" at the end). Given that both of them (as well as
vpiColumn and vpiEndColumn) are missing from the header file, 
we can change them.
 
In my opinion the only things to do are:
  - add a couple of notes to describe vpiColumn and vpiEndColumn
  - change the names of vpiStartLine to vpiStartLineNo, vpiEndLine to
vpiEndLineNo
 - add vpiColumn, vpiEndColumn, vpiStartLineNo, vpiEndLineNo to the
header file.
 
Comments?
 
Should I enter a mantis item and make a proposal?
 
Francoise
       '


________________________________

	From: Michael Rohleder [mailto:michael.rohleder@freescale.com] 
	Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 12:08 PM
	To: fm
	Subject: [Fwd: RE: [sv-cc] SV-CC Meeting minutes for 02/15/2006
-- vpiColumn et. al.]
	
	


	-------- Original Message -------- 
Subject: 	RE: [sv-cc] SV-CC Meeting minutes for 02/15/2006 --
vpiColumn et. al.	
Date: 	Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:23:17 -0800	
From: 	Bassam Tabbara <Bassam.Tabbara@synopsys.com>
<mailto:Bassam.Tabbara@synopsys.com> 	
To: 	SV-CC <sv-cc@eda.org> <mailto:sv-cc@eda.org> 	


	Hi all, 
	
	About the following:
	===
	   - vpiEndColumn and vpiColumn issue brought up by Francoise
	
	     Chas recalls us discussing this during balloting, and that
Bassam
	     thought it was important that they remain.  Michael thinks
these
	     are to help figure out what caused the state change.  Abby
doesn't
	     think that it matches the other way things are done.  This
needs
	     to be looked at more carefully.  At the very least, these
need
	     to be added to the include file. Michael will provide
Francoise
	     an example.  Francoise will file a Mantis item and work
with
	     Michael on a solution.
	===
	
	I reviewed this a bit now. I think Michael is right about the
reasoning
	-- it is about knowing the detailed expression progress (that
caused
	fail say), a very basic debug (printing) capability. For details
see the
	"step" portion of the Assertion API. 
	
	1) For example:
	
	property p;
	  @clk s1 ##1 s1;  // <<<< when we report that "s1" did not
match, which
	s1 do we mean ? Need column (for printing say) ...
	endproperty
	
	A: assert property(p);
	
	2) For the "history" of issue you can refer to LRM 3.1a and look
at:
	
	typedef struct t_vpi_assertion_step_info {
	
	>>>>>p_vpi_source_info<<<< *exprs_source_info; /* array of
source info
	*/
	
	} s_vpi_assertion_step_info, *p_vpi_assertion_step_info;
	
	Now in P1800 revision we killed the source_info bit and opted to
offer
	the data in more of VPI form, hence the vpiColumn et. al., but
seems
	forgot to upgrade the include file.
	
	3) Bug in LRM: I think the "location" block was meant to be for
	expressions (see the "step" part...) i.e. should be at 27.36
"Sequence
	expression" (to cover expr/sequence_inst  ...). The
assertion/cover/....
	Do not really need this we already can get this info from the
	declaration (vpiDefFile/Line ... Note no column... Well assuming
	reasonable user indentation :)!).
	
	** BTW, I do not think there is a need to add this "location" to
27.34
	as well (for property_expr), the original intent for sequence
level is
	good enough and still holds true given today's property
composition
	constructs, adding this makes little sense.
	
	4) TODO:
	 - Copy "location" block to 27.36
	 - Remove from 27.31
	 - Change all occurrence of vpiDefLineNo to vpiLineNo
	 - Change all occurrence of vpiDefFile to vpiFile
	 - Add the "location" items (except vpiFile) to sv_vpi_user.h
Annex I.
	
	Thx.
	-Bassam.
	
	--
	Dr. Bassam Tabbara
	Synopsys, Inc.
	(650) 584-1973