| Anonymous | Login | 2010-09-03 01:59 PDT |
| Main | My View | View Issues | Docs | Wiki |
| Viewing Issue Simple Details [ Jump to Notes ] [ Wiki ] | [ View Advanced ] [ Issue History ] [ Print ] | ||||||
| ID | Category | Severity | Date Submitted | Last Update | |||
| 0002088 | [SystemVerilog P1800] SV-SC | feature | 2007-10-08 17:42 | 2008-12-19 18:19 | |||
| Reporter | Tom Thatcher | View Status | public | ||||
| Assigned To | Tom Thatcher | ||||||
| Priority | normal | Resolution | fixed | ||||
| Status | closed | Product Version | P1800-2008/D3a | ||||
| Summary | 0002088: Allow Checker construct (0001900) to include covergroups | ||||||
| Description | 0001900 adds a construct called a checker to encapsulate sequences and properties. However, the current proposal does not allow a covergroup to be included inside the checker. The checker construct will not be complete, and will be of limited use if covergroups are not included. | ||||||
| Additional Information | |||||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||||
| Type | Enhancement | ||||||
| Attached Files |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
Relationships |
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
Notes |
|
|
David C Scott (developer) 2007-12-05 16:40 edited on: 2007-12-05 16:40 |
I would like to request SV-EC approval for this one. |
|
John Havlicek (manager) 2008-02-05 04:35 |
2008-02-04: e-mail ballot passed, 9y/0n/0a. There were friendly amendments. |
|
John Havlicek (manager) 2008-02-12 20:21 |
2008-02-11: Passed by e-mail vote, 7y/0n/2a. There were friendly amendments. The friendly amendments were approved by voice vote on 2008-02-12, 8y/0n/0a. |
|
John Havlicek (manager) 2008-02-12 20:23 |
This proposal needs to be reviewed and approved by SV-EC. |
|
Tom Thatcher (developer) 2008-02-27 17:37 |
Re-opened to address feedback from sv-ec. Proposal will be revised to allow only covergroup instances within a checker. The covergroup definitions will need to occur outside the checker. |
|
John Havlicek (manager) 2008-02-28 05:46 |
2008-02-07: e-mail ballot passed, 7y/0n/2a. There was one minor friendly amendment. |
|
John Havlicek (manager) 2008-02-28 08:58 |
2008-02-28: Voice vote 7y/0n/0a to approve friendly amendment font change. |
|
Neil Korpusik (administrator) 2008-04-22 14:16 |
This proposal is under review by the sv-sc |
|
Neil Korpusik (administrator) 2008-04-23 11:07 |
Moving to the sv-sc. |
|
Erik_Seligman (developer) 2008-07-23 09:37 |
Passed by voice vote at SV-SC meeting 2008-07-22, conditional on Tom reviewing p.3 example with two identical bins after return from vacation: did he intend this legal but odd case to illustrate something subtle, or should we replace it with a more typical case of disjoint bins? 8y/0n/4a Abstain: - Gordon based on email vote, likely to be substantive user-based issues resulting in implementation divergence. Risk factors are too high. Addresses current user needs, but will have future changes. - Steven based on same issues as Gord and hasn’t reviewed the proposal. - Mirek: No expertise in cover groups. - Manisha: Agrees with Gordon |
|
shalom (manager) 2008-07-29 10:41 |
Uploaded new version from Tom Thatcher according to http://www.eda-stds.org/sv-sc/hm/0654.html [^] |
|
Neil Korpusik (administrator) 2008-08-01 18:26 |
The proposal was sent back to the SV-SC by the Champions in the July 31st, 2008 conference call. - Email from John before the meeting: I don't understand the rationale for the restriction that the covergroup event cannot reference a checker variable. Couldn't this effect be achieved by created code in the checker that is sensitive to the checker variable and then using an active triggering mechanism (e.g., "->cg_event")? Perhaps there are more restrictions in other checker proposals that forbid this kind of code. Technical Issue: --------------- Are checker variables allowed in an event expression for procedures within checkers? The restriction on page 3 could possibly be worked around, which raises a question about the restriction. There seems to be an inconsistency. Either 2088 or 1900 should be revised to address this. Editorial issues: ---------------- - p3 bottom, also on p4, two places, the first line of the example, there is a missing ';' - p4, first paragraph, 3rd line, "non-blocking" --> "nonblocking" |
|
Tom Thatcher (developer) 2008-08-04 08:17 |
I have removed the restriction that checker variables may not appear in the covergroup sampling event. This restriction is no longer needed anyway. I have also fixed the editorial issues. |
|
Erik_Seligman (developer) 2008-08-05 09:33 |
SV-SC approved latest edit in 2008-08-05 mtg. 9y/0n/0a. |
|
Neil Korpusik (administrator) 2008-08-18 17:22 |
Results of the Champion's email vote which ran for 6 days, ending on Wednesday, August 13th (7pm PST). 2. 2088 "Conditionally" approve the proposal - motion passed (5y,0n,0a) Note: 0002088 is a set of changes on top of 0001900. This vote is to "conditionally approve" 2088. 0002088 will pass, only if 2088 "conditionally" passes in this email vote and mantis 1900 ends up passing. The reason for doing this is to get out on the table any issues that the Champions have with 2088. |
|
Neil Korpusik (administrator) 2008-08-28 09:28 |
The proposal was approved by the Working Group in the continuation of the August 14, 2008 conference call, which was held on August 28, 2008. There was one Opposed and one Abstain. Opposed: Dennis (Mentor) Abstain: Jim (Cadence) In favor: Sun, Intel, Synopsys |
|
Stuart Sutherland (manager) 2008-09-11 01:25 |
The change proposal was implemented in draft 7. |
|
Neil Korpusik (administrator) 2008-12-19 18:19 |
I verified that the proposal was added correctly to 1800-2009 draft 7. Changing the status to closed. |
| Mantis 1.1.7[^] Copyright © 2000 - 2008 Mantis Group |