-
The attached example demonstrates an issue where when both branches in a multiplex have a constant bit in the same position the tool does not recognize that this is a constant value and hence can not have toggle coverage. I remember in the past you fixed a bug similar to this, but as I remember this was related to plain constant values, not multiplexed constant values. If need I can work around...
2010-01-08 01:02:35 UTC in Covered
-
That worked. I guess you can switch this to a feature request to keep the bug report space cleaner.
2010-01-08 00:48:17 UTC in Covered
-
And so it is! I'll change the status back to pending.
2010-01-08 00:02:22 UTC in Covered
-
The patch got the exclusion working correctly. I'm not certain I would mark this request fixed since what I originally asked for was to make covered smarter about recognizing cases that can never exist.
2010-01-07 23:17:14 UTC in Covered
-
OK, I'll try that and see how things go.
Thanks,
Cary.
2010-01-07 20:02:12 UTC in Covered
-
Here's the trace back:
(gdb) where
#0 0xffffe410 in __kernel_vsyscall ()
#1 0x47cd37a5 in raise () from /lib/tls/libc.so.6
#2 0x47cd5209 in abort () from /lib/tls/libc.so.6
#3 0x47cccd91 in __assert_fail () from /lib/tls/libc.so.6
#4 0x0809550f in instance_find_expression_by_exclusion_id (root=0x8160368, id=115, found_funit=0xbfeb088c)
at instance.c:466
#5 0x0807d9c2 in...
2010-01-07 20:00:51 UTC in Covered
-
This is also likely an addition that you don't have time for, but is there any way to get covered to recognize and not ignore latches?
In my current design I have a huge number of intended set/reset latches. In some places I can change these to flip-flops with a define for coverage analysis, but for other places the latch is integral to the functionality of the circuit. I use it to prevent...
2010-01-07 17:26:04 UTC in Covered
-
Thanks Trevor,
I added the -x flag and got an expression id of E115. I then tried to add the following before the report generation, but it crashed:
covered exclude E115 file.cdd.
It crashed with the following message:
covered: instance.c:466: instance_find_expression_by_exclusion_id: Assertion 'root->funit != ((void *)0)' failed.
One question. When working does this exclude the...
2010-01-07 17:11:28 UTC in Covered
-
Attached is an example that contains code where covered is complaining about missing coverage, because of the equation the missing coverage can not be created. It would be nice if covered could figure this out and automatically exclude the cases like this . You can likely have a similar issue with the left shift.
I have been trying to figure out how to exclude just this missing case, but the...
2010-01-07 01:49:24 UTC in Covered
-
This should be applied to V0.9 if the patch that caused this is also ported to V0.9.
2010-01-06 21:43:52 UTC in Icarus Verilog
