[sv-ec] RE: A couple items about 2506 (Non-trivial coverage space shapes)

Hi Ray:

1) I can go either way on this option. You are correct that the effort_limit will vary from processor to processor. My expectation is that this is more of a debug feature. It would be employed to quickly identify which covergroup is taking a long time to build the coverage space. Given this use case I don't see the need for it to be applied at the instance level. Mike, can you shed any light on the motivations here?

2) I agree that this feels very much like a vendor option. I am fine to remove it from the proposal.

Thanks,
Scott

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sv-ec@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org] On Behalf Of
> Ryan, Ray
> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 12:43 PM
> To: sv-ec@eda.org
> Subject: [sv-ec] A couple items about 2506 (Non-trivial coverage space
> shapes)
>
> 1) At the end of the proposal there is the addition of "effort_limit"
> to table 19-1 (Instance Specific Coverage options).
> My general impression is that this is more of a vendor option. However,
> if it is specified in the LRM the limit should specify an effort number
> (rather than "number of CPU seconds) where the interpretation of the
> number is vendor specific. The tie to "CPU seconds" is problematic,
> (still will vary between vendors, but now will vary depending CPU to
> CPU). Does this need to be specified for each covergroup instance?
>
> 2) There is also an addition of "study" to table 19-3 -- Coverage group
> type (static) options. This feels even more like a vendor option
> (optimization).
>
>
> Ray Ryan
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
>

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.