Stats

  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 8
  • Subscribers 65
  • Views 17813
  • Members are here 0
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Functional Coverage with irun command

MVERMA

Hi,

 I trying to generate functional coverage using irun command.

I have given "-coverage functional" in the elab phase.  I am not getting any of the data orirnted coverage. Can anybody knows what I am missing.

 

Thanks! 

  • What sort of coverage are you expecting? SVA or PSL Assertions? SV, Specman or SystemC functional coverage groups?

     

  • Hi Steve, I am expecting SV functional coverage groups. Thanks!

  • OK, in that case, a few things to check: did you call the constructor for your covergroups? Did you destroy the class instances before the end of the simulation (this would remove the coverage)?

    When the simulation runs and exits, does it print a banner showing the details of the coverage files that are being dumped?

    When elaborating the design, if you add the -messages switch do you see the summary table at the end of the log, showing how many SV covergroups there are? 

  • I am calling the constructor. How I can see whether it's destroying or not all the class instances and how we can avoid this? I am seeing the banner showing the coverage files that are dumped but not seeing any SV covergroups in that. Also I observed all the coverage files is design files not the verification classes.

  • Do you mean that the covergroups are instantiated only in modules / program blocks or interfaces, and not in classes? If so then my comment about classes being destroyed (garbage collected) is not relevant.

    Are you sure that your covergroups are ever sampled? 

  • Covergroups are instantiated in class not in modules / program blocks or interfaces. I tried this with VCS and it is working correctly means sampling all my covergroups.

  • One other thing: do you use "iccr" or "imc" to view the coverage results?

    I would strongly recommend to use "imc" as it's much newer and has better analysis capabilities. The old iccr tool isn't being developed any more.

    What's more, in iccr it doesn't show type-based funstional coverage, it can only show instance-based coverage, so if you didn't declare your coverage using the option.per_instance=1 then coverage will be collected but only for type-based, and iccr cannot show it. However if you use "imc" then it can show type-based and instance-based coverage. See http://support.cadence.com/wps/mypoc/cos?uri=deeplinkmin:ViewSolution;solutionNumber=11794766 for more info. 

  • Yes, It's working with IMC. Thanks!

Community Guidelines

The Cadence Design Communities support Cadence users and technologists interacting to exchange ideas, news, technical information, and best practices to solve problems and get the most from Cadence technology. The community is open to everyone, and to provide the most value, we require participants to follow our Community Guidelines that facilitate a quality exchange of ideas and information. By accessing, contributing, using or downloading any materials from the site, you agree to be bound by the full Community Guidelines.