<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://www.cadence.com/Community/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Unified Verification Coverage Metrics – Not An Impossible Dream</title><link>http://www.cadence.com/Community/blogs/ii/archive/2009/06/22/unified-verification-coverage-metrics-not-an-impossible-dream.aspx</link><description>Will it ever be possible to come up with a unified coverage metric that tells you how complete a verification task is, regardless of which engines were used? It now appears things may be headed in that direction. Many design and verification teams today</description><dc:language>en</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2007.1 (Build: 20917.1142)</generator></channel></rss>