In reply to cgales:
I hope you don’t find me argumentative, but i’m just curious on some of your points.
-
Ok so a sequence_item is created, as i thought sequence_items are objects they would disappear in whatever garbage collection SV has? The same data is still taking up the same memory space at that point in time with the same overheads.
-
i appreciate the randomization point, - i never knew this!
-
the last point is subject to sequence or sequence_item hierarchy. The point of coverage driven verification is to constraint and let everything else randomize. In that context, creating a sequence_item and letting the contents randomize based on a few constraints is exactly the simplicity and abstraction that is the holy grail of test design.
This is the appeal of uvm_do to me - my tests are just a collection of sequences that call `uvm_do.
Most of my sequence_items have constraints for the limits, and then all the hard data is generated with urandom() in the post_randomize depending on how much control i need of the data distribution.