Mark W Brehob <
[email protected]> writes:
> Does anyone have any nice suggestions for automatically figuring out
> if vcs failed? I realize I could parse the output from vcs, but that
> is somewhat inconvenient (read would take me a few hours of changing
Do you mean from vcs to verify that the compilation has failed or from
vcs to verify if the simulation failed?
I usually treat these the same, in both cases the simulation has
failed. I "parse" the output from the simulation and I put great
effort into making my testbench self checking. Care should be made to
prevent false a false positive, e.g. grep'ing for the absence of error
is a bad thing to do. I make the testbench write out a unique string I
can search for where the name of the test and its pass/fail status is
written (if you reuse your simulation directory you will need a
timestamp too to check that the output is newer than your simulation
start time). Any absence of this unique string and a pass string means
that the test has failed, regardless if the reason was a syntax error,
license problem, disk full, pattern expect error, etc.
Petter
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?