Home > Community > Forums > Functional Verification > Exclude functional coverage for particular test

Email

* Required Fields

Recipients email * (separate multiple addresses with commas)

Your name *

Your email *

Message *

Contact Us

* Required Fields
First Name *

Last Name *

Email *

Company / Institution *

Comments: *

 Exclude functional coverage for particular test 

Last post Fri, Jun 24 2011 2:49 AM by StephenH. 5 replies.
Started by Ravisinha 21 Jun 2011 02:44 AM. Topic has 5 replies and 2836 views
Page 1 of 1 (6 items)
Sort Posts:
  • Tue, Jun 21 2011 2:44 AM

    • Ravisinha
    • Top 500 Contributor
    • Joined on Tue, Nov 24 2009
    • Posts 21
    • Points 315
    Exclude functional coverage for particular test Reply
    Hi All, I am running regression for my SOC and that list contains the register write-read test also, and because of that my vr_ad functional coverage is 100%. Is that any way/switch by which for register write-read testcase i can disable collecting the functional coverage in SPECMAN. Thanks in advance.
    • Post Points: 20
  • Tue, Jun 21 2011 8:51 AM

    • StephenH
    • Top 25 Contributor
    • Joined on Tue, Sep 2 2008
    • Bristol, Avon
    • Posts 258
    • Points 4,100
    Re: Exclude functional coverage for particular test Reply

    An excellent question, as this highlights the danger of relying on automatic coverage.

    In vr_ad you can constrain the has_coverage field of your vr_ad_map or vr_ad_reg_file. By default it's TRUE, but if you constrain it to FALSE then you won't get any coverage collected. So, in your test file you can do something like:

    extend my_env {
      keep not my_map.has_coverage;
    };

    The nice thing about this is that has_coverage simply disables the emission of the coverage event, so it doesn't change the coverage model itself. This means all your tests can be merged without conflict.

    Steve Hobbs / Applications Engineer / Cadence Functional Verification
    Filed under: , , ,
    • Post Points: 20
  • Wed, Jun 22 2011 3:58 AM

    • Ravisinha
    • Top 500 Contributor
    • Joined on Tue, Nov 24 2009
    • Posts 21
    • Points 315
    Re: Exclude functional coverage for particular test Reply
    Hi Stephen, Thanks for ur help, In my verification environment vr_ad is getting loaded at last so i was not able to do the above line of code because till that time my_env was no such feild("reg_mem.addr_maps") so what i did is, i extended vr_ad_group and did that. extend vr_ad_group{ keep soft has_coverage == FALSE; };
    • Post Points: 20
  • Wed, Jun 22 2011 4:01 AM

    • StephenH
    • Top 25 Contributor
    • Joined on Tue, Sep 2 2008
    • Bristol, Avon
    • Posts 258
    • Points 4,100
    Re: Exclude functional coverage for particular test Reply

     Surely your test file would be the last one loaded, so you could have put the extend in there?

    Steve Hobbs / Applications Engineer / Cadence Functional Verification
    • Post Points: 20
  • Wed, Jun 22 2011 4:15 AM

    • Ravisinha
    • Top 500 Contributor
    • Joined on Tue, Nov 24 2009
    • Posts 21
    • Points 315
    Re: Exclude functional coverage for particular test Reply
    Yes that's true but the problem here was I was using the legacy code of my client and in the testcase only they are calling the setup file in which vr_ad is also getting compiled.
    • Post Points: 20
  • Fri, Jun 24 2011 2:49 AM

    • StephenH
    • Top 25 Contributor
    • Joined on Tue, Sep 2 2008
    • Bristol, Avon
    • Posts 258
    • Points 4,100
    Re: Exclude functional coverage for particular test Reply

    This should not cause a problem. For example:

    // test.e
    <'
    import my_env_config;
    extend my_env {
      keep not mem_map.has_coverage;
    };
    '>

    If you're still having difficulty, please can you file a service request on http://support.cadence.com/ so we can organise some more appropriate support?

    Steve Hobbs / Applications Engineer / Cadence Functional Verification
    • Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (6 items)
Sort Posts:
Started by Ravisinha at 21 Jun 2011 02:44 AM. Topic has 5 replies.