RE: [sv-bc] areas for future work

  

Duth,

If you have any suggestions for improving the specify block, by all
means propose something, but not now. It will get lost here as we are
only supposed to be discussing errata. (I know that will do little to
stop others:-))

The issue with the VCD file is unrelated to timing, but was brought up
by Shalom in the same e-mail. Deprecating a feature does not mean tools
have to stop supporting it, and they usually never do. It really just
means that the tool's behavior with new extensions to the language will
remain undefined or an error. 

You should be able to get the same information out of the data read API
that you got from the VCD file.

Dave

 

 

________________________________

From: Premduth Vidyanandan [mailto:premduth.vidyanandan@xilinx.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 8:33 AM
To: Rich, Dave; Bresticker, Shalom; sv-bc@eda.org
Subject: RE: [sv-bc] areas for future work

 

Hi Shalom,


This may apply a lot in the ASIC world, although in the world of FPGAs
we are still asking customers to use timing simulation. There are some
aspects that formal verification and static analysis by itself cannot
cover. In our models the most common one is block ram collisions in the
Dual Port memories, this can only be seen in timing simulation and thus
we ask people to run timing simulation still. In the last DVCON I
actually co-presented a paper on this as well.

Our recommendation is do both timing simulation as well as static timing
analysis for FPGA designs.

I can see the need to deprecate the text VCD file due to the size
problems, although I do not think that it should be done for the sole
purpose of not needing timing simulation. Xilinx also uses this VCD file
for power estimation so the decision to deprecate this can put us in a
lot of trouble.

 

Thanks

Duth

 

 

________________________________

From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On Behalf Of
Rich, Dave
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 9:20 AM
To: Bresticker, Shalom; sv-bc@eda.org
Subject: RE: [sv-bc] areas for future work

 

Shalom,

I would hope that you have specific requirements that need to be
addressed. Most people have moved away from using dynamic timing
analysis because it is not accurate enough. And people are now beginning
to replace gate-level simulation with formal equivalence checking

Section 30 of the 1800 LRM is supposed to replace the need for a text
VCD file, which should eventually be deprecated.

Dave

 

________________________________

From: owner-sv-bc@eda.org [mailto:owner-sv-bc@eda.org] On Behalf Of
Bresticker, Shalom
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 11:52 PM
To: sv-bc@eda.org
Subject: [sv-bc] areas for future work

 

Hi,

 

There are a few areas in Verilog/SystemVerilog which were not dealt with
very much in both 1364-2005 or 1800-2005, in terms of errata, clarity
and/or enhancements.

The ones which first come to mind are:

-         specify blocks/timing checks: all of errata, clarity, and
enhancements. Nearly everywhere we looked, we found problems here. And
new data types require enhancements. The problem is that most SV-BC
people probably are not well versed in these areas. Either 1800 should
create a new sub-committee for it or SV-BC should create a task force
for it. But we need to find people who are both well-versed in it and
have time and ability to do standards work.

-         UDPs: enhancements. I don't know whether this needs anything,
but we could probably find useful things.

-         VCD: enhancements. With new data types, this is badly out of
date.

Thanks,

Shalom

Shalom Bresticker

Intel Jerusalem LAD DA

+972 2 589-6852

+972 54 721-1033

I don't represent Intel