In the previous post, we looked at how to use policy classes as parameters for a highly configurable coverage collector. This allows us to easily implement different variations of what bins to ignore. If you haven't read that one yet, I'd encourage you to do so before continuing with this post.
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://verificationgentleman.netlify.app/2015/06/29/some-more-ideas-on-coverage-extendability.html
In the coverage collector, for the arrays containing the ignore bins (the ones we defined static due to simulator limitations), some simulators might complain that they can’t be used inside the coverpoint bin definitions, because they aren’t constant (which is true). In those cases, try replacing ‘static’ with ‘constant’ and it should work.
Hi Tudor, thats so beautiful, thanks for sharing these ideas with us.
In fact, as you can imagine, me too as an old grumpie specman (ex-) Boy I am missing the simple ways how you can adapt covergrps and cover items in specman to your Needs in the systemverilog language.
These discussions are always very nice and constructive and a resource of valuable informations…
ciao, see you some time at the Campeon!