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

Bassam, my apologies, but I didn't catch what comment
your response is addressing.  I.e., what is the "it" in
"it does", and what does it do?

Thanks,
Jim

--------------------------------------------------------- 
James H. Vellenga                            978-262-6381 
Engineering Director                   (FAX) 978-262-6636 
Cadence Design Systems, Inc.         vellenga@cadence.com 
270 Billerica Rd 
Chelmsford, MA 01824-4179 
"We all work with partial information." 
---------------------------------------------------------- 
  
 

] -----Original Message-----
] From: owner-sv-cc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-cc@eda.org] On 
] Behalf Of Bassam Tabbara
] Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2006 7:05 PM
] To: Francoise Martinolle; Bassam.Tabbara@synopsys.com; sv-cc@eda.org
] Subject: Re: [Fwd: RE: [sv-cc] SV-CC Meeting minutes for 
] 02/15/2006 -- vpiColumn et. al.]
] 
] Actually it does, see vpisequencedecl vs. Vpisequenceinst ...
] 
] 
] THX. 
] -Bassam
] 
] -----Original Message-----
] From: francoise martinolle <fm@cadence.com>
] To: 'Bassam Tabbara' <Bassam.Tabbara@synopsys.COM>; 'SV-CC' 
] <sv-cc@eda.org>
] Sent: Wed Mar 29 19:55:11 2006
] Subject: RE: [Fwd: RE: [sv-cc] SV-CC Meeting minutes for 
] 02/15/2006 -- vpiColumn et. al.]
] 
] We cannot put vpiLine, vpiColumn etc.. on expr class because 
] VPI does not create separate handles for expressions which refer
] to declarations.
] Ex:
] If the expression is a simple variable, the handle to the 
] expression is the same as a handle to the variable
] declaration. The vpiType of the *expression* will be the 
] vpiType as if you had accessed the variable declaration itself.
] This is for minimizing the number of handles created. Hence 
] you cannot get different line information for the variable and
] for an expression which refer to the variable.
]  
] In fact having the column information on the assertion itself 
] is good, as you have different properties to access the line 
] declaration
] for the assertion itself and other properties to access the 
] "expression state" of the assertion. With combining 
] assertion_step_info and the
] column/startline information a user can easily determine 
] which part of the assertion failed/was attempted.
]  
]  
] Francoise
]  
] 
] 
] ________________________________
] 
] 	From: owner-sv-cc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-cc@eda.org] 
] On Behalf Of Bassam Tabbara
] 	Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 5:02 PM
] 	To: SV-CC
] 	Subject: 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
] 		
] 		
] 
] 
]