Home
  • Products
  • Solutions
  • Support
  • Company

This search text may be transcribed, used, stored, or accessed by our third-party service providers per our Cookie Policy and Privacy Policy.

This search text may be transcribed, used, stored, or accessed by our third-party service providers per our Cookie Policy and Privacy Policy.

  • Products
  • Solutions
  • Support
  • Company
Community Functional Verification explain/correct my understanding between average/covered...

Stats

  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 1
  • Subscribers 65
  • Views 1750
  • 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

explain/correct my understanding between average/covered in imc metrics

chetan somana
chetan somana over 1 year ago

I'm working on the code coverage. Doing a metrics analysis by default we see overall average grade and overall covered. But when i do a block analysis on an instance i see overall covered grade, code covered grade, block covered grade, statement covered grade, expression covered grade, toggle covered grade.

As I dont know the difference I started to read the IMC user guide and came to know there are 3 things we come across while doing a code coverage local, covered, average

From my understanding

local - child instances metrics doesnt reach the parent level. For example, we have an instance Q and its sub instances like Q.a, Q.b. Block Local grade of Q can be 100% even when its instances Q.a and Q.b a block local grades isnt at 100%.

In the attached image there is formula 

The key difference between average and covered is the weights.

Average : Mathematically taking the above scenario where Q.a, and Q.b has 10 blocks each. Q.a has covered 8 blocks and q.b has covered 2 blocks. Now if we take the normal average it should be total covered/ totatl number = 8+2/10+10 yielding 50%. But when we add weights saying Q.a is 70% and Q.b is 30% the new number would be (8*0.7+2*0.3) / (10*0.7+10*0.3) resulting 62%. Because of the weights we see 12% bump.

Covered: there is no role of weights.

Among these 3 metrics i've changed my default view to this in the image to get more realistic picture when i do analyze metrics. Do you guys agree with the approach?

  • Cancel
  • StephenH
    StephenH over 1 year ago

    The weights only impact functional coverage. The Average grades are designed to highlight low grades in smaller child node (i.e. those with a small number of bins), whereas the Covered grades are a simple ration of the hit bins / total bins, which can hide small but un-hit items low down in the hierarchy.

    You would do well to look at both average and covered grades, and investigate why either type is not 100%.

    • Cancel
    • Vote Up 0 Vote Down
    • Cancel

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.

© 2025 Cadence Design Systems, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy
  • Cookie Policy
  • US Trademarks
  • Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information