Posts Tagged ‘verilog’
A unique concept most beginners have trouble grasping about the Verilog, and now the SystemVerilog, Hardware Description Language (HDL) is the difference between wire’s (networks) and reg‘s (variables). This concept is something that every experienced RTL designer should be familiar with, but there are now many verification engineers with no prior Verilog experience trying to pick up SystemVerilog for their testbench. Verification methodology courses tend to concentrate on the Object-Oriented programming aspects of testbench design, but do not cover this topic thinking that it is for designers only. Not true. If you have to communicate with a DUT then you need to understand the difference between wire’s and reg’s (nets and variables).
Anyone tasked with having to design or verify a piece of hardware should have some basic programming skills and understand the concept of a variable. If not, you had better stop right here and brush up on some programming basics. The key concept that you need to take away from programming is that you write a value into a variable and that value is saved until the next assignment to that variable. This concept is referred to as a procedural assignment which is part of executing an ordered set of statements. An HDL may add some notion of time in between assignments and other statements. The last assignment determines the current value of the variable.
|Combinatorial Logic||Sequential Logic|
Initially, Verilog used the keyword reg to declare variables representing sequential hardware registers. Eventually, synthesis tools began to use reg to represent both sequential and combinational hardware as shown above and the Verilog documentation was changed to say that reg is just what is used to declare a variable. SystemVerilog renamed reg to logic to avoid confusion with a register – it is just a data type (specifically reg is a 1-bit, 4-state data type). However people get confused because of all the old material that refers to reg. Just forget about it and use logic from now on.
Another distinctive characteristic of an HDL is that it models massive amounts of parallel processes. At the lowest level of digital design, every primitive gate (AND, OR, DFF) is an independent concurrent process. Modules are containers representing processes modeled at different levels of abstraction. Groups of primitives and modules pass values to each other via networks of signals. In Verilog, a wire declaration represents a network (net) of connections with each connection either driving a value or responding to the resolved value being driven on the net. The output of each of these concurrent processes drives a net in what is called a continuous assignment because the process continually updates the value it wants to drive on the net. There are various ways to declare a continuous assignment, all of which represent permanent behaviors:
wire A, B, C;
assign A = B| C; // continuous assignment construct.
or(A,B,C); // gate-level instance terminal connection
mymodule m1(A,B,C); // module instance port connection
Although these are all different forms of continuous assignment constructs, none of them directly assign a value to the net like a procedural assignment would. All of the values being concurrently driven onto the net are passed into a built-in resolution function. The result of that resolution function is based on the strengths of each driver representing the hardware technology in use. For example, an interrupt request signal might use the wired-or (wor) kind of net to indicate that at least one device is driving a ’1′, otherwise it will resolve to a ’0′. Some signals will have weaker pull-up/down resistors that will be overridden by the values of a stronger driver. Most technologies do not allow driving different values on the same net and the net will resolve to an unknown ‘x’ when that happens. In this case only one driver is actively assigning a ’0′ or ’1′ and the other drivers are effectively turned off by driving a high-impedance or ‘z’ state. The consequence of this is that a bi-directional port must be modeled using a net in order to have multiple drivers on either side of the port.
See my recent DVCon paper for an example of modeling bidirectional signals along with other tips for connecting the Testbench to your DUT.
It turns out that the vast majority of nets in a design will only have a single driver, so no strength information or resolution function is needed. SystemVerilog added a feature that allows a single continuous assignment to drive a variable. The expression driving the continuous assignment is assigned to the variable every time the expression changes its value. As soon as you have more than one driver or need strength information, you must go back to using a net. You cannot mix procedural and continuous assignments to the same variable. The reason for that restriction is that there is no way to resolve the “last write wins” semantics of a procedural assignment with a driver that wants to continually assign the variable (i.e. when is the last write finished and the continuous assignment supposed to take over?).
In summary, you should now be using logic for 4-state variables (or bit for 2-state variables) to represent all of your single drive signals. Any signal with more or the potential for more than one driver should be declared as a wire.
This is the first in a series of blogs that presents the results from the 2012 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study.
In 2002 and 2004, Ron Collett International, Inc. conducted its well known ASIC/IC functional verification studies, which provided invaluable insight into the state of the electronic industry and its trends in design and verification. However, after the 2004 study, no other industry studies were conducted, which left a void in identifying industry trends.
To address this void, Mentor Graphics commissioned Far West Research to conduct an industry study on functional verification in the fall of 2007. Then in the fall of 2010, Mentor commissioned Wilson Research Group to conduct another functional verification study. Both of these studies were conducted as blind studies to avoid influencing the results. This means that the survey participants did not know that the study was commissioned by Mentor Graphics. In addition, to support trend analysis on the data, both studies followed the same format and questions (when possible) as the original 2002 and 2004 Collett studies.
In the fall of 2012, Mentor Graphics commissioned Wilson Research Group again to conduct a new functional verification study. This study was also a blind study and follows the same format as the Collett, Far West Research, and previous Wilson Research Group studies. The 2012 Wilson Research Group study is one of the largest functional verification studies ever conducted. The overall confidence level of the study was calculated to be 95% with a margin of error of 4.05%.
Unlike the previous Collett and Far West Research studies that were conducted only in North America, both the 2010 and 2012 Wilson Research Group studies were worldwide studies. The regions targeted were:
- North America:Canada,United States
- Asia (minusIndia):China,Korea,Japan,Taiwan
The survey results are compiled both globally and regionally for analysis.
Another difference between the Wilson Research Group and previous industry studies is that both of the Wilson Research Group studies also included FPGA projects. Hence for the first time, we are able to present some emerging trends in the FPGA functional verification space.
Figure 1 shows the percentage makeup of survey participants by their job description. The red bars represents the FPGA participants while the green bars represent the non-FPGA (i.e., IC/ASIC) participants.
Figure 1: Survey participants job title description
Figure 2 shows the percentage makeup of survey participants by company type. Again, the red bars represents the FPGA participants while the green bars represents the non-FPGA (i.e., IC/ASIC) participants.
Figure 2: Survey participants company description
In a future set of blogs, over the course of the next few months, I plan to present the highlights from the 2012 Wilson Research Group study along with my analysis, comments, and obviously, opinions. A few interesting observations emerged from the study, which include:
- FPGA projects are beginning to adopt advanced verification techniques due to increased design complexity.
- The effort spent on verification is increasing.
- The industry is converging on common processes driven by maturing industry standards.
My next blog presents current design trends that were identified by the survey. This will be followed by a set of blogs focused on the functional verification results.
Also, to learn more about the 2012 Wilson Reserach Group study, view my pre-recorded Functional Verification Study web-seminar, which is located out on the Verification Academy website.
Quick links to the 2012 Wilson Research Group Study results (so far…)
- Part 1 – Design Trends
Tags: accellera, Assertion-Based Verification, formal verification, functional coverage, functional verification, IEEE, Simulation, Standards, SystemVerilog, UVM, Verification Academy, Verification Methodology, verilog, vhdl
How do your favorites rank?
Have you ever wondered how popular the different IEEE standards for electronic design automation are? Have you ever wondered which ones show the least interest? When buying books online, popular book buying websites sites will rank customer purchases. Many newspapers manage lists that you can consult to determine what is the most popular; what has the highest demand. But if you have purchased any IEEE standards, you will know this information is not available from the IEEE Store or the IEEE XPlore platform.
On May 4th, the IEEE Standards Association announced its collaboration with Techstreet to create the New IEEE Standards Store. Until now, anyone who wanted to order a single standard had to use a more complex system that even made it hard to share a permanent link to one’s favorite standard with another. Just look at the Accellera homepage for an example of where to get the SystemVerilog (IEEE Std. 1800™) standard. At the writing of this blog, it simply points to www.ieee.org. [I will share the fact the IEEE’s new site now has fixed links that can now be used to help others find the most current SystemVerilog standard with the Accellera.]
But back to what is the most popular IEEE EDA standards… Any guesses?
Before I delve into those details, let me say the ranking is just by ordinal. The New IEEE Standards Store shares no information on the actual number of standards purchased. So the difference between #1 and #10 could be just 10 copies. It probably isn’t, but it could be. But talking about #10, why is it even on the list? The IP-XACT standard (IEEE Std. 1685™) is available for free under the IEEE Get Program. Under this program you can download a PDF of the IEEE standard for free. If you want a printed version, you can print your own copy from the free one you download. Back in December 2010, Accellera reported that since the IEEE started to offer IP-XACT for free, there had been 1200 downloads. It also looks like many people did not want the hassle to print and simply ordered the print version directly from the IEEE. The other IEEE EDA standard offered free is SystemC© And this is probably the reason it is in 32nd place. It is very popular in terms of the number of free downloads.
And yes, if you search for the those two standards on the New IEEE Standards Store, you will find you can order print copies there and if you read the small print below, you will see there is a link to take you to the free online versions.
Harry Foster has issued several research reports on the popularity of one language or format the past several months. In his last blog, he discussed which of the design and verification languages are ranked high and those, well, not so high. And I guess I feel best to share the correlation between his findings and these more “anecdotal” results from the New IEEE Standards Store. I have been party to many at the top standards (Verilog/SystemVerilog) and party to the “least highest” (yes, I can’t say the least liked) VITAL 2000. For vindication, I will note that VITAL-95 comes in at #18. In whole, it appears to me that the New IEEE Standards Store ordinal rankings of EDA standards matches the scientific data from the research Harry has reported.
Below is the full ranking of IEEE EDA standards. Where are your favorites?
|1||IEEE 1364-2001||Verilog Hardware Description Language|
|2||IEEE 1800-2009||SystemVerilog–Unified Hardware Design, Specification, and Verification Language|
|3||IEEE 1076-2002||VHDL Language Reference Manual|
|4||IEEE 1076-1993||VHDL Language Reference Manual|
|5||IEEE 1499-1998||Interface for Hardware Description Models of Electronic Components|
|6||IEEE 1364-1995||Hardware Description Language Based on the Verilog® Hardware Description Language|
|7||IEEE 1800-2005||SystemVerilog: Unified Hardware Design, Specification and Verification Language|
|8||IEEE 1076.2-1996||VHDL Mathematical Packages|
|9||IEEE 1076.1-1999||VHDL Analog and Mixed-Signal Extensions|
|10||IEEE 1685-2009||IP-XACT, Standard Structure for Packaging, Integrating, and Reusing IP within Tool Flows|
|11||IEEE 1850-2005||Property Specification Language (PSL)|
|12||IEEE 1076c-2007||VHDL Language Reference Manual – Procedural Language Application Interface|
|13||IEEE 1164-1993||Multivalue Logic System for VHDL Model Interoperability (Std_logic_1164)|
|14||IEEE 1850-2010||Property Specification Language (PSL)|
|15||IEEE 1076.6-2004||VHDL Register Transfer Level (RTL) Synthesis|
|16||IEEE 1801-2009||Design and Verification of Low Power Integrated Circuits|
|17||IEEE 1481-2009||Integrated Circuit (IC) Open Library Architecture (OLA)|
|18||IEEE 1076.4-1995||VITAL Application-Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC) Modeling Specification|
|19||IEEE/IEC 61691-5-2004||IEC 61691-5 Ed.1 (IEEE Std 1076.4(TM)-2000): Behavioural Languages – Part 5: Standard VITAL ASIC (Application Specific Integrated Circuit) Modeling Specification|
|20||IEEE 1647-2008||Functional Verification Language e|
|21||IEEE 1076.1.1-2011||VHDL Analog and Mixed-Signal Extensions — Packages for Multiple Energy Domain Support|
|22||IEEE/IEC 61691-7-2009||Behavioural languages – Part 7: SystemC Language Reference Manual|
|23||IEEE 1076-1987||VHDL Language Reference Manual|
|24||IEEE 1076.1.1-2004||VHDL Analog and Mixed-Signal Extensions—Packages for Multiple Energy Domain Support|
|25||IEEE 1076.3-1997||VHDL Synthesis Packages|
|26||IEEE/IEC 61523-3-2004||IEC 61523-3 Ed.1 (IEEE Std 1497(TM)-2001): Delay and Power Calculation Standards – Part 3: Standard Delay Format (SDF) for the Electronic Design Process|
|27||IEEE 1076/INT-1991||Interpretations: IEEE Std 1076-1987, IEEE Standard VHDL Language Reference Manual|
|28||IEEE/IEC 62531-2007||IEC 62531 Ed. 1 (2007-11) (IEEE Std 1850-2005): Standard for Property Specification Language (PSL)|
|29||IEEE 1076.6-1999||VHDL Register Transfer Level Synthesis|
|30||IEEE 1647-2006||Functional Verification Language “e”|
|31||IEEE/IEC 61691-6-2009||Behavioural languages – Part 6: VHDL Analog and Mixed-Signal Extensions|
|32||IEEE 1666-2005||SystemC® Language Reference Manual|
|33||IEEE/IEC 61691-1-1-2004||IEC 61691-1-1 Ed.1 (IEEE Std 1076(TM)-2002): Behavioural Languages – Part 1-1: VHDL Language Reference Manual|
|34||IEEE 1364-2005||Verilog Hardware Description Language|
|35||IEEE/IEC 61691-4-2004||IEC 61691-4 Ed.1 (IEEE Std 1364(TM)-2001): Behavioural Languages – Part 4: Verilog® Hardware Description Language|
|36||IEEE 1076.4-2000||VITAL ASIC (Application Specific Integrated Circuit) Modeling Specification|
Learn more about the New IEEE Standards Store
There is much more to the New IEEE Standards Store than just the rankings of the standards we use in electronic design automation. As I mentioned, it is easier to share fixed links to IEEE standards. And if you want to track IEEE standards development – and don’t want to have to register your email address with the actual committee developing it just to know when they are done and a standard is ready – you can register to be notified when a new standard is ready. The New IEEE Standards Store will notify you when a new one is ready.
Check out the short, one minute, video below to learn more about the New IEEE Standards Store.
Language and Library Trends
This blog is a continuation of a series of blogs, which present the highlights from the 2010 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study (for a background on the study, click here).
In my previous blog (Part 7 click here), I focused on some of the 2010 Wilson Research Group findings related to testbench characteristics and simulation strategies. In this blog, I present design and verification language trends, as identified by the Wilson Research Group study.
You might note for some of the language and library data I present, the percentage sums to more than one hundred percent. The reason for this is that some perticipant’s projects use multiple languages and multiple methodologies.
Let’s begin by examining the languages used for design, as shown in Figure 1. Here, we compare the results for languages used to design FPGAs (in grey) with languages used to design non-FPGAs (in green).
Figure 1. Languages used for design
Not too surprising, we see that VHDL is the most popular language used for the design of FPGAs, while Verilog and SystemVerilog are the most popular languages used for the design of non-FPGAs.
Figure 2 shows the trends in terms of languages used for design, by comparing the 2007 Far West Research study (in blue) with the 2010 Wilson Research Group study (in green), as well as the projected design language adoption trends within the next twelve months (in purple). Note that the design language adoption is declining for most of the languages with the exception of SystemVerilog whose adoption is increasing.
Figure 2. Trends in languages used for design
Next, let’s look at the languages used for verification (that is, languages used to create simulation testbenches). Figure 3 compares the results between FPGA designs (in grey) and non-FPGA designs (in green).
Figure 3. Languages used in verification to create simulation testbenches
And again, it’s not too surprising to see that VHDL is the most popular language used to create verification testbenches for FPGAs, while SystemVerilog is the most popular language used to create testbenches for non-FPGAs.
Figure 4 shows the trends in terms of languages used to create simulation testbenches by comparing the 2007 Far West Research study (in blue) with the 2010 Wilson Research Group study (in green), as well as the projected language adoption trends within the next twelve months (in purple). Note that verification language adoption is declining for most of the languages with the exception of SystemVerilog whose adoption is increasing.
Figure 4. Trends in languages used in verification to create simulation testbenches
Now, let’s look at methodology and class library adoption. Figure 5 shows the future trends in terms of methodology and class library adoption by comparing the 2010 Wilson Research Group study (in green) with the projected adoption trends within the next twelve months (in purple). Previous studies did not include data on methodology and class library adoption, so we are unable to show previous trends.
Figure 5. Methodology and class library future trends
The study indicates that the only methodology adoption projected to grow in the next twelve months are OVM and UVM.
Assertion Languages and Libraries
Finally, let’s examine assertion language and library adoption, as shown in Figure 6. Here, we compare the results for FPGA designs (in grey) and non-FPGA designs (in green).
Figure 6. Assertion language and library adoption
SystemVerilog Assertions (SVA) is the most popular assertion language used for both FPGA and non-FPGA designs.
Figure 7 shows the trends in terms assertion language and library adoption by comparing the 2007 Far West Research study (in blue) with the 2010 Wilson Research Group study (in green), as well as the projected adoption trends within the next twelve months (in purple). Note that the adoption of most of the assertion languages is declining, with the exception of SVA whose adoption is increasing.
Figure 7. Trends in assertion language and library adoption
In my next blog (click here), I plan to focus on the adoption of various verification technologies and techniques used in the industry, as identified by the 2010 Wilson Research Group study.
Tags: 1076, 1364, 1666, 1800, accellera, Add new tag, Assertion-Based Verification, functional verification, IEEE 1800, OVM, Standards, SystemVerilog, UVM, Verification Methodology, verilog, vhdl, vmm
United States Plays Host in Seattle, WA
The IEC’s 47th General Assembly meeting opened on October 11th in Seattle, WA USA. Plans had been put in place for about 2,500 delegates but that number was exceeded by nearly 25% with more than 3,100 people registered. Three days before the start of the meeting the Technical Committee 93, which addresses all the design automation standards held seven working group meetings from Friday-Sunday. On Monday the group reported out conclusions of all the committee’s working groups.
Working Group 2 manages the process to promote dual-logo standards development between the IEEE and IEC for design languages and may be of particular interest to VHDL, Verilog, SystemVerilog and SystemC users. In addition to the responsibility to manage design language dual-logo standards, WG 2 has maintenance responsibility for IBIS, the I/O Buffer Information Specification. IBIS 4.2 is on the work plan for standardization. The Japanese National Committee’s technical report from JEITA on their Bird’s eye View of Design Language (BVDL) was also submitted as an official submission.
The TC 93 addresses a broad spectrum of standards for the design automation of electronic devices ranging from printed circuit boards and systems to semiconductor devices and systems. From that broad swath of interests, two dual-logo candidates germane to language-based design flows were on the agenda for consideration by the IEC Standards Management Board (SMB).
Specifically, IEEE Std 1076-2008 and IEEE Std 1800-2009 were approved by the SMB at the start of the meeting series on 11 October 2010 as dual-logo standards. For those who purchase their standards from the IEC or their national standards bodies, the VHDL standard is known as IEC 61691-1-1 Ed. 2.0 (2010) and the SystemVerilog standard is known as IEC 62530 Ed. 2.0 (2010). The content between the IEEE and IEC are the same with the exception of the cover page of the standard, which will carry both the IEEE and IEC logo. Different countries have different rules and laws to recognize standards. The IEC plays a key role to bridge these differences to promote efficient and effective global use of VHDL, Verilog, SystemVerilog, SystemC and more.
Just in time for the holidays!
IEEE Std. 1800™-2009, aka SystemVerilog 2009, is ready for purchase and download from the IEEE. The standard was developed by the SystemVerilog Working Group and recently approved by the IEEE. It is an entity project of the IEEE jointly sponsored by the Corporate Advisory Group (CAG) and the Design Automation Standards Committee (DASC). The working group members represented Accellera, Sun Microsystems Inc, Mentor Graphics Corporation, Cadence Design Systems, Intel Corporation and Synopsys along with numerous other volunteers from around the world.
The publication of the standard culminates the work of representatives from the companies above along with numerous other interested parties and volunteers. Thank you to all who made this happen!
This standard represents a merger of two previous standards: the IEEE Std 1364-2005 Verilog Hardware Description Language (HDL) and the IEEE Std 1800-2005 SystemVerilog Unified Hardware Design, Specification, and Verification Language.
In these previous standards, Verilog was the base language and defined a completely self-contained standard. SystemVerilog defined a number of significant extensions to Verilog, but IEEE Std 1800-2005 was not a self-contained standard; IEEE Std 1800-2005 referred to, and
relied on, IEEE Std 1364-2005. These two standards were designed to be used as one language.
Merging the base Verilog language and the SystemVerilog extensions into a single standard enables users to have all information regarding syntax and semantics in a single document. The standard serves as a complete specification of the SystemVerilog language. The standard contains the following:
- The formal syntax and semantics of all SystemVerilog constructs
- Simulation system tasks and system functions, such as text output display commands
- Compiler directives, such as text substitution macros and simulation time scaling
- The Programming Language Interface (PLI) mechanism
- The formal syntax and semantics of the SystemVerilog Verification Procedural Interface (VPI
- An Application Programming Interface (API) for coverage access not included in VPI
- Direct programming interface (DPI) for interoperation with the C programming language
- VPI, API, and DPI header files
- Concurrent assertion formal semantics
- The formal syntax and semantics of standard delay format (SDF) constructs
- Informative usage examples
Where to Download & Purchase
For users who have access to IEEE Xplore, free downloads are available here.
For user who purchase single-copy need to visit Shop IEEE (here) and search for “1800″ to purchase. IEEE Member price is $260 and non-member price is $325.
About Verification Horizons BLOG
This blog will provide an online forum to provide weekly updates on concepts, values, standards, methodologies and examples to assist with the understanding of what advanced functional verification technologies can do and how to most effectively apply them. We're looking forward to your comments and suggestions on the posts to make this a useful tool.
- Part 1: The 2012 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
- What’s the deal with those wire’s and reg’s in Verilog
- Getting AMP’ed Up on the IEEE Low-Power Standard
- Prologue: The 2012 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
- Even More UVM Debug in Questa 10.2
- IEEE Approves New Low Power Standard
- May 2013 (2)
- April 2013 (2)
- March 2013 (2)
- February 2013 (5)
- January 2013 (1)
- December 2012 (1)
- November 2012 (1)
- October 2012 (4)
- September 2012 (1)
- August 2012 (1)
- July 2012 (6)
- June 2012 (1)
- May 2012 (3)
- March 2012 (1)
- February 2012 (6)
- January 2012 (2)
- December 2011 (2)
- November 2011 (2)
- October 2011 (3)
- September 2011 (1)
- July 2011 (3)
- June 2011 (6)
- Intelligent Testbench Automation Delivers 10X to 100X Faster Functional Verification
- Part 9: The 2010 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
- Verification Horizons DAC Issue Now Available Online
- Accellera & OSCI Unite
- The IEEE’s Most Popular EDA Standards
- UVM Register Kit Available for OVM 2.1.2
- May 2011 (2)
- April 2011 (7)
- User-2-User’s Functional Verification Track
- Part 7: The 2010 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
- Part 6: The 2010 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
- SystemC Day 2011 Videos Available Now
- Part 5: The 2010 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
- Part 4: The 2010 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
- Part 3: The 2010 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study
- March 2011 (5)
- February 2011 (4)
- January 2011 (1)
- December 2010 (2)
- October 2010 (3)
- September 2010 (4)
- August 2010 (1)
- July 2010 (3)
- June 2010 (9)
- The reports of OVM’s death are greatly exaggerated (with apologies to Mark Twain)
- New Verification Academy Advanced OVM (&UVM) Module
- OVM/UVM @DAC: The Dog That Didn’t Bark
- DAC: Day 1; An Ode to an Old Friend
- UVM: Joint Statement Issued by Mentor, Cadence & Synopsys
- Static Verification
- OVM/UVM at DAC 2010
- DAC Panel: Bridging Pre-Silicon Verification and Post-Silicon Validation
- Accellera’s DAC Breakfast & Panel Discussion
- May 2010 (9)
- Easier UVM Testbench Construction – UVM Sequence Layering
- North American SystemC User Group (NASCUG) Meeting at DAC
- An Extension to UVM: The UVM Container
- UVM Register Package 2.0 Available for Download
- Accellera’s OVM: Omnimodus Verification Methodology
- High-Level Design Validation and Test (HLDVT) 2010
- New OVM Sequence Layering Package – For Easier Tests
- OVM 2.0 Register Package Released
- OVM Extensions for Testbench Reuse
- April 2010 (6)
- SystemC Day Videos from DVCon Available Now
- On Committees and Motivations
- The Final Signatures (the meeting during the meeting)
- UVM Adoption: Go Native-UVM or use OVM Compatibility Kit?
- UVM-EA (Early Adopter) Starter Kit Available for Download
- Accellera Adopts OVM 2.1.1 for its Universal Verification Methodology (UVM)
- March 2010 (4)
- February 2010 (5)
- January 2010 (5)
- December 2009 (15)
- A Cliffhanger ABV Seminar, Jan 19, Santa Clara, CA
- Truth in Labeling: VMM2.0
- IEEE Std. 1800™-2009 (SystemVerilog) Ready for Purchase & Download
- December Verification Horizons Issue Out
- Evolution is a tinkerer
- It Is Better to Give than It Is to Receive
- Zombie Alert! (Can the CEDA DTC “User Voice” Be Heard When They Won’t Let You Listen)
- DVCon is Just Around the Corner
- The “Standards Corner” Becomes a Blog
- I Am Honored to Honor
- IEEE Standards Association Awards Ceremony
- ABV and being from Missouri…
- Time hogs, blogs, and evolving underdogs…
- Full House – and this is no gamble!
- Welcome to the Verification Horizons Blog!
- September 2009 (2)
- July 2009 (1)
- May 2009 (1)