“The expression within the iff construct specifies an optional condition that disables coverage for that coverpoint. If the guard expression evaluates to false at a sampling point, the coverage point is ignored.” I interpret “ignored” to mean as if no sample() had occurred: 1) You are perceptive to point out that the behavior of a reset should really be similar to that of a property’s disable construct. But I would prefer to keep transition bins simple and leave anything more complex to a cover directive. Dave Mentor Graphics From: owner-sv-ec@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-ec@eda.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Mlynek Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 6:11 AM To: sv-ec@eda.org Subject: [sv-ec] transition coverpoints and iff LRM do not explains for iff should behave for transition coverpoints. I see at least 2 options - when iff condition is false at the moment of sampling: 1. skip this sample 2. kill whole transition sequence There could be also 3rd possibility that iff is async but it rather wont be compatybily with other covergroup features. Am I missing the description of this feature? How it should work? Should I report mantis on that? Consider example should "b" be covered or not (for 1st solution it should be for 2nd it should not) module top; int i,i1,i2,i3,i4,i5; bit r; covergroup CG; type_option.merge_instances = 1; coverpoint i4 iff(!r){ bins b = (1=>2=>3); } endgroup CG cg = new; initial begin i4=0;r=0; #1;cg.sample;#1; i4=1;r=0; #1;cg.sample;#1; i4=10;r=1;//here iff condition is tunred off #1;cg.sample;#1; i4=2;r=0; #1;cg.sample;#1; i4=3;r=0; #1;cg.sample;#1; end endmodule DANiel -- 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 Thu Sep 5 08:19:45 2013
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Sep 05 2013 - 08:19:51 PDT