Continue to Site

Welcome to EDAboard.com

Welcome to our site! EDAboard.com is an international Electronics Discussion Forum focused on EDA software, circuits, schematics, books, theory, papers, asic, pld, 8051, DSP, Network, RF, Analog Design, PCB, Service Manuals... and a whole lot more! To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.

ModelSim Equivalent of Active-HDL's Path Coverage Option

Status
Not open for further replies.

derelaut

Newbie level 2
Joined
Nov 7, 2017
Messages
2
Helped
0
Reputation
0
Reaction score
0
Trophy points
1
Activity points
15
Hi,

I'm converting my testbench to use ModelSim instead of Active-HDL. Active-HDL's path coverage option is a useful statistic (take a look at figures 3 and 4 in this example), but I can't seem to find an equivalent coverage option in ModelSim.

Is anyone aware of a similar tool that exists in ModelSim? Thanks.
 

I haven't used that feature a lot, but it does do code coverage.
 

I haven't used that feature a lot, but it does do code coverage.

Are you saying that ModelSim naturally does this kind of code coverage when even the minimum coverage is turned on? I guess I could test it out. It just seems like that's such a special kind of coverage and I could see why Aldec made it an option to turn on and off.
 

Path coverage becomes unmanageable as your design grows in complexity. Modelsim/Questa offers different sets of code coverage metrics that you should look into. (for example. focused expression coverage FEC). But you need to realize that none of this tells you how much you've tested to meet the functional requirements your code is supposed to have implemented.

Code coverage provides valuable information; it tells you what code in your design has been exercised. Without this information, portions of the design might not be exercised at all. However, just knowing design code has been exercised is not sufficient to determine if that code was exercised properly. It could be said that some of the higher forms of code coverage (such as, expression, branch, path, and state machine coverage) can give you more information about your code, but it is dangerous to make this assumption. Using these higher forms of code coverage can lead to false conclusions that can cost large amounts of time and money to verify.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Part and Inventory Search

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top