Hi Dmitry,
My suggestion is to leave things as they are and not write assertions
that suffer from this problem.
Neil
On 11/05/10 17:24, Korchemny, Dmitry wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
>
> Deferred assertions were designed to avoid simulation glitches. However
> simulation glitches are still possible when some of the assertion
> subexpressions are evaluated in the Active region and the others in the
> Reactive one. In this case the assertion matures twice: the first time
> when it reaches the Observed region for the first time, and the second
> time when it reaches it again upon the evaluation in the Reactive
> region. One such example is discussed in Mantis 3206
> (http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/file_download.php?file_id=4571&type=bug
> <http://www.eda-stds.org/mantis/file_download.php?file_id=4571&type=bug>).
> This situation is going also to occur in checkers when the continuous
> assignments in checkers are introduced.
>
>
>
> To address these problems the simulation semantics of deferred
> assertions should be changed. I can think of the following options:
>
> 1. Make assertions mature in the Postponed region instead of the
> Observed one. The advantage of this solution is its simplicity, the
> obvious disadvantage is the inability to change anything from the
> assertion action blocks.
>
> 2. Require deferred assertions to “make two full iterations through
> simulation regions”, and make them mature only starting at the second
> visit in the Observed region. The advantages is the ability to change
> design variables from the assertion action blocks (e.g., to count), its
> disadvantage is performance penalty and more complicate simulation
> semantics.
>
>
>
> What would you suggest?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Dmitry
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Intel Israel (74) Limited
>
> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by *MailScanner* <http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is
> believed to be clean.
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Fri Nov 5 17:57:13 2010
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Nov 05 2010 - 17:59:53 PDT