Posts Tagged ‘Accellera’

22 July, 2017

There’s a wonderful quote in Brian Kernighan book The Elements of Programming Style, where he says “Everyone knows that debugging is twice as hard as writing a program in the first place. So if you’re as clever as you can be when you write it, how will you ever debug it?” Humor aside, our 2016 Wilson Research Group study supports the claim that debugging is a challenge today, where most projects spend more time involved in debugging than any other task.

One insidious aspect of debugging is that it is unpredictable if not properly managed. For example, from a management perspective, it is easy to gather metrics on various processes involved in the product development lifecycle from previous projects in order to plan for the future. However, the unpredictability of debugging becomes a manager’s nightmare. Guidelines for efficient debugging are required to improve productivity.

In reality, debugging is required in every process that spans a products development lifecycle, from conception, architectural design, implementation, post-silicon, and even the test and testbenches we create to verify/validate a design. The emergence of SystemVerilog and UVM has necessitated the development of new debugging skills and tools. Traditional debugging approaches that were adopted for simple RTL testbenches have become less productive. To address this dearth of new debugging process knowledge I’m excited to announce that the Verification Academy has just released a new UVM debugging course. This course consists of five video sessions. Topics that are covered in this course include:

• A historical perspective on the general debugging problem
• Ways to effectively debug memory leaks in UVM environments
• How to debug connectivity issues between UVM components
• Guidelines to effectively debug common issues related to UVM phases
• Methods to debug common issues with the UVM configuration database

As always, this course is available free to you. To learn more about our new Verification Academy debugging course, as well as all our other video courses, please visit www.verificationacademy.com.

, , , , , ,

2 June, 2017

New languages and descriptions are a key part of moving the state of the art forward in a given domain. New languages align the abstraction level of the description with the problems being solved – for example, SystemVerilog brought object-oriented programming techniques into the hardware-description domain to address the challenge of verifying complex designs. The Portable Test and Stimulus standard being developed by Accellera brings new capabilities to describing test intent that is usable across verification platforms and test-abstraction levels.

New languages face a well-known challenge, though: on Day 1, very little content will exist in the new language. Meanwhile, a huge amount of intellectual property will exist in other languages. In some sense, it’s tempting to term this ‘legacy’ code, but it’s really just existing code. When developing a new language, a primary concern is to what extent this existing code can be leveraged alongside content written in the new language.

In some cases, the new language is a superset of an existing language, allowing existing code to be directly used within new descriptions. Both SystemVerilog and C++ originally adopted this model. This made it very easy for users with C code, for example, to begin adopting features of C++. One downside of this approach is that existing code often uses patterns and approaches that are discouraged in the new language.

Due in part to its long history, the C language has always been a bit of a lingua franca when it comes to leveraging existing descriptions within new languages. Almost every new language introduced over the past few decades has supported interoperability with existing C code and code that can be called via a C API. Just a sampling of new languages that have supported calling C code include C++, Java, C#, TCL, PERL, Python, Verilog, VHDL, and SystemVerilog.

The ability to use existing descriptions was a key concern during development of the Accellera Portable Test and Stimulus language, and the emerging standard provides several mechanisms to enable reuse of existing descriptions. One of these, not surprisingly, is a mechanism for calling external C functions. This mechanism is very similar to SystemVerilog DPI, VHDL’s foreign-language interface, and the Java Native Interface (JNI).

Here a short example, which is a simple C API for setting filter coefficients and then initializing the filter:

In SystemVerilog, we can access these functions from SystemVerilog via the Direct Procedural Interface (DPI). To do so, we specify import functions declarations in SystemVerilog:

With the Portable Test and Stimulus domain-specific language, we can also specify import declarations to enable access to the external C API:

Now we can access the external C functions from our Portable Test and Stimulus description, as shown below. The Portable Test and Stimulus description specifies that a random device configuration will be selected by the tool (rand device_cfg), while the content of the exec block specify what external activity should occur. In this case, a sequence of calls to the C API.

The Accellera Portable Test and Stimulus standard is coming, and the procedural interface provides an easy way to access existing functionality on written in C (or any language that provides a C interface) from descriptions written using the new standard. For more information on Portable Test and Stimulus, please see the Portable Stimulus Basics course on Verification Academy. If you’re interested in learning more about the facilities the Portable Test and Stimulus standard will provide for reuse, please see my paper “Making Legacy Portable with the Portable Stimulus Specification”.

https://verificationacademy.com/courses/portable-stimulus-basics

https://verificationacademy.com/resources/technical-papers/making-legacy-portable-with-the-portable-stimulus-specification

, ,

1 June, 2017

Accellera’s Emerging Portable Stimulus Standard Is Pervasive at DAC 54

For the past few years, Accellera’s Portable Stimulus Working Group has been busy at work on the new standard to elevate stimulus generation to improve overall verification productivity.  As the call to attend the annual Accellera breakfast DAC 54 informs us, the Accellera Portable Stimulus early adopter release is planned to be made available prior to DAC.  I’m certain that a download of the early adopter release will make for good reading for those traveling to DAC and have not participated in the development of the standard.  I predict it will be a “page-turner.”  You will be in a much better position to attend the following events in and around DAC (some of which require DAC registration fee payment and some that are fee-free) if you download and read it when ready.  Here are some of the DAC 54 Portable Stimulus activities:

Monday June 19th

Tuesday June 20th

Wednesday June 21st

And for those who will not be attending DAC, I will update this blog with information on how you can download the Accellera Portable Stimulus early adopter release.  There is also online educational videos about the emerging Portable Stimulus standard.  You can find a two sessions at the Mentor Verification Academy on Portable Stimulus Basics. And the DVCon U.S. 2017 technical tutorial, Creating Portable Stimulus Models with the Upcoming Accellera Standard, presented in three parts is located at the Accellera website.  Both online educational video offerings require registration.

, , , ,

13 March, 2017

Just getting around to gathering my thoughts about the great week we had at DVCon U.S. As Program Chair for the conference, I felt a great sense of pride that, with a great deal of help from my colleagues on the conference Steering Committee and especially the great team of experts on the Technical Program Committee, we were able to provide the attendees with a packed program of interesting, informative and entertaining events. But, as always happens, there was one topic that seemed to get the lion’s share of attention. This year, it was Portable Stimulus.

Starting with a standing-room-only crowd (even after bringing in more chairs) of nearly 200 people on Monday morning for the Accellera Day tutorial presented by the members of the Portable Stimulus Working Group (including yours truly), Portable Stimulus never seemed to be far from any of the discussions.

Full house at the DVCon U.S. 2017 Portable Stimulus Tutorial

Full house at the DVCon U.S. 2017 Portable Stimulus Tutorial

If you weren’t able to attend the conference, Accellera will be presenting the tutorial as a series of webinars in early April, so you’ll be able to see what got everyone so excited. In addition to the tutorial, there was a “Users Talk Back” panel session on Wednesday morning that gave several user companies a chance to voice their opinions about the upcoming Portable Stimulus standard. Having been so involved in the standardization effort, I was gratified to hear the generally positive feedback by these industry leaders.

We were pleased also to have two great Portable Stimulus articles in our most recent issue of Verification Horizons. The first article  is from our friends at CVC showing how they used Questa inFact to create a portable graph-based stimulus model that they used in their UVM environment to verify a memory controller design. The second is from my colleague Matthew Ballance, who is also a key technical contributor to the PSWG efforts, and discusses Automating Tests with Portable Stimulus from IP to SoC Level. In this article, you’ll learn about some of the concepts and language constructs of the proposed standard to see how the declarative nature of the standard makes it easier to specify complex scenarios for block-level verification and to combine those into SoC-level scenarios that are often difficult to express with UVM sequences.

The other exciting news I wanted to share with you is our new Portable Stimulus Basics video course on Verification Academy. We can’t yet share all the details of the upcoming standard, since things are still being finalized in the Working Group, but as things are made public, we’ll be sharing what we can so you’ll be the first to learn about this exciting new standard. As we add new sessions to the course, we’ll be sure to let you know. Please go check it out.

, , ,

24 February, 2017

My last blog post was written a few years ago before attending a conference when I was reminiscing about the 10-year history of SystemVerilog. Now I’m writing about going to another conference, DVCon, and being part of a panel reminiscing about the 15-year history of SystemVerilog and envisioning its future. My history with SystemVerilog goes back much further.

Soul of a New MachineMy first job out of college was working with a group of Data General (DG) engineers made public in the book, Soul of a New Machine, by Tracy Kidder in 1981. Part of my job was writing a program that simulated the microcode of the CPUs we designed. Back then, there were no hardware description languages and you had to hard code everything for each CPU. If you were lucky you could reuse some of the code for the user interface between projects. Later, DG came up with a somewhat more general-purpose simulation language. It was general-purpose in the sense that it could be used for a wider range of projects based on the way DG developed hardware. But getting it to work in another company’s environment would have been a challenge.  By the way, Badru Agarwala was the DG simulation developer I worked with who later founded the Verilog simulation companies Frontline and Axiom. He now manages the Calypto division at Mentor Graphics.

Many other processor companies like DEC, IBM and Intel had their own in-house simulation languages or were in the process of developing one because no commercially viable technologies existed. Eventually, Phil Moorby at Gateway Design began developing the Verilog language and simulator. One of the benefits of having an independent language, although not an official standard yet, was you could now share or bring in models from outside your company. This includes being able to hand off a Verilog netlist to another company for manufacturing. Another benefit was that companies could now focus on the design and verification of their products instead of the design and verification of tools that design and verify their products.

I evaluated Verilog in its first year of release back in 1985/1986. DG decided not to adopt Verilog at that point, but I liked it so much I left DG and joined Gateway Design as one of its first application engineers. Dropping another name, Karen Bartleson was one of my first customers as a CAD manager working at UTMC. She recently took the office of President and CEO of the IEEE.

IEEEFast forward to the next decade, when Verilog became standardized as IEEE 1364-1995. But by then it had already lost ground in the verification space. Companies went back to developing their own in-house verification solutions. Sun Microsystems developed Vera and later released it as a commercial product marketed by Systems Science. Arturo Salz was one of its developers and will be on the DVCon panel with me as well. Specman was developed for National Semiconductor and a few other clients and later marketed by Verisity. Once again, we had the problem of competing independent languages and therefore limiting the ability to share or acquire verification models. So, in 1999, a few Gateway alums and others formed a startup which I joined a year later hoping to consolidate design and verification back into one standard language. That language was SUPERLOG and became the starting point for the Accellera SystemVerilog 3.0 standard in 2002, fifteen years ago.

IEEE Std 1800-2012There are many dates you could pick for the start of SystemVerilog. You could claim it couldn’t exist until there was a simulator supporting some of the features in the standard. For me, it started when I first read an early Verilog Language Reference Manual and executed my first initial block 31 years ago. I’ve been using Verilog almost every day since. And now all of Verilog is part of SystemVerilog. I’ve been so much a part of the development of the language from its early beginnings; that’s why some of my colleagues call me “The Walking LRM”. Luckily, I don’t dream about it. I hope I never get called “The Sleeping LRM”.

So, what’s next for SystemVerilog? Are we going to repeat the cycle of fragmentation and re-consolidation? Various extensions have already begun showing up in different implementations. SystemVerilog has become so complex that no one can keep a good portion of it in their head anymore. It is very difficult to remove anything once it is in the LRM. Should we start over? We tried to do that with SUPERLOG, but no one adopted it until it was made fully backward compatible with Verilog.

The Universal Verification Methodology (UVM) was designed to cut down the complexity of learning and using SystemVerilog. There are now a growing number of sub-methodologies for using the UVM because the UVM itself has exploded in complexity  (UVM Framework and Easier UVM to name a couple). I have also taken my own approach when teaching people SystemVerilog by showing a minimal subset (See my SystemVerilog OOP for UVM Verification course).

DVConI do believe in the KISS principle of Engineering and I hope that is what prevails in the next version of SystemVerilog, whether we start over or just make refinements. I hope you will be able to join the discussion with others and me at the DVCon panel next week, or in the forums in the Verification Academy, or on Twitter.

-Dave

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

15 December, 2016

Technical Program is Live

For the past several months, the DVCon U.S. Steering Committee has been meeting to craft a compelling event of technical papers, panels, keynotes, poster sessions and more for you.  With the hard work of authors who supply this content and the Technical Program Committee that reviews and selects from this content, a 4-day event schedule is now published.  You can find the event schedule here.

I am pleased to chair DVCon U.S. 2017 and work with such an august body of people – from the electronic design automation industry, design and verification practitioners and professionals from large systems houses to small consultancies – all who work hard for you to make this happen.  As has been the tradition of DVCon U.S. the past several years, the event starts with Accellera Day on Monday (Feb 27th) followed by two days of paper presentations, keynotes, panels and an exhibition.  The exhibition starts Monday, Accellera Day.  The last day of DVCon U.S. features a full day of tutorials split in to half-day parts.

Accellera Day

DVCon U.S. will feature something for advanced users and those who may be more novice.  The conference will showcase emerging standards and updates to those standards well used.  On Monday, Accellera Day, DVCon U.S. begins with a tutorial devoted to work underway within Accellera on a new standard, “Portable Stimulus,” that is set to give design and verification engineers a boost in overall design and verification productivity.  Given the work by the Accellera Portable Stimulus Working Group to put as much of the standard in place that it can, this tutorial, Creating Portable Stimulus Models with the Upcoming Accellera Standard, is sure to be an important educational opportunity.  If you are a user of UVM (Universal Verification Methodology) you will find the Portable Stimulus standard is set to remove many of the limitations of reuse at the subsystem and full-chip level and address the lack of portability across execution platforms.  Are you ready for Portable Stimulus?  You will be ready after attending this tutorial.

As the Monday luncheon evolves, I anticipate a moderated panel discussion hosted by Accellera on the emerging Portable Stimulus standard based on what you learned in the morning session.  As lunch ends, two parallel tutorials will start, one on IEEE P1800.2™ (aka UVM) and the other on System C design and verification advances.  Accellera Day is a great event to learn about the latest in the evolution of standards coming from Accellera and the IEEE.

Special Session

DVCon U.S. will make one departure from prior years’ programs and offer a special session on Tuesday on Trends in Functional Verification: A 2016 Industry Study presented by Harry Foster.  Harry has been reporting on the 2016 Wilson Research Group Study here at the Verification Horizon’s BLOG, and he has shared regional information at DVCon Europe and DVCon India on adoption and use of design and verification tools, technology and standards.  At DVCon U.S. he will pull all this together to show trends and offer predictions for the future.

There is much more to DVCon U.S. 2017 that I think you will find useful.  I leave it to you to explore the program more to discover this for yourself.  And if you can make it to DVCon U.S., registration is also open with advanced rates available until January 26th.  I hope to see you there!

, , , , , , ,

31 October, 2016

ASIC/IC Language and Library Adoption Trends

This blog is a continuation of a series of blogs related to the 2016 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study (click here).  In my previous blog (click here), I focused on I various verification technology adoption trends. In this blog I plan to discuss various ASIC/IC language and library adoption trends..

Figure 1 shows the adoption trends for languages used to create RTL designs. Essentially, the adoption rates for all languages used to create RTL designs is projected to be either declining or flat over the next year.

BLOG-2016-WRG-figure-10-1

Figure 1. ASIC/IC Languages Used for RTL Design

As previously noted, the reason some of the results sum to more than 100 percent is that some projects are using multiple languages; thus, individual projects can have multiple answers.

Figure 2 shows the adoption trends for languages used to create ASIC/IC testbenches. Essentially, the adoption rates for all languages used to create testbenches are either declining or flat. Furthermore, the data suggest that SystemVerilog adoption is starting to saturate or level off in the mid-70s range.

BLOG-2016-WRG-figure-10-2

Figure 2. ASIC/IC Languages Used for  Verification (Testbenches)

Figure 3 shows the adoption trends for various ASIC/IC testbench methodologies built using class libraries.

BLOG-2016-WRG-figure-10-3

Figure 3. ASIC/IC Methodologies and Testbench Base-Class Libraries

Here we see a decline in adoption of all methodologies and class libraries with the exception of Accellera’s UVM, whose adoption continued to increase between 2014 and 2016. Furthermore, our study revealed that UVM is projected to continue its growth over the next year. However, like SystemVerlog, it will likely start to level off in the mid- to upper-70 percent range.

Figure 4 shows the ASIC/IC industry adoption trends for various assertion languages, and again, SystemVerilog Assertions seems to have saturated or leveled off.

BLOG-2016-WRG-figure-10-4

Figure 4. ASIC/IC Assertion Language Adoption

In my next blog (click here) I plan to present the ASIC/IC design and verification power trends.

Quick links to the 2016 Wilson Research Group Study results

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

10 October, 2016

ASIC/IC Verification Technology Adoption Trends

This blog is a continuation of a series of blogs related to the 2016 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study (click here).  In my previous blog (click here), I focused on the growing ASIC/IC design project resource trends due to rising design complexity. In this blog I examine various verification technology adoption trends.

Dynamic Verification Techniques

Figure 1 shows the ASIC/IC adoption trends for various simulation-based techniques from 2007 through 2016, which include code coverage, assertions, functional coverage, and constrained-random simulation.

BLOG-2016-WRG-figure-9-1

Figure 1. ASIC/IC Dynamic Verification Technology Adoption Trends

One observation from these adoption trends is that the ASIC/IC electronic design industry has matured its verification processes. This maturity is likely due to the growing complexity of designs as discussed in the previous section. Another observation is that constrained-random simulation and code coverage adoption appears to have declined. However, as I mentioned in Part 7 (click here) one interesting observation for this year’s study is that there was a large increase in design projects working on designs less than 100K gates, perhaps is due to an increased number of projects working on smaller sensor chips for IoT devices. Nonetheless, it is important to keep in mind that very small projects do not apply advanced verification techniques, which can bias the overall industry verification technique adoption trends in some cases. Hence, in reality the adoption of constrained-random simulation and code coverage has actually leveled off (versus declined) if you ignore these very small devices.

Another reason constrained-random simulation has leveled off is due to its scaling limitations. Constrained-random simulation generally works well at the IP block or subsystem level, but does not scale to the entire SoC integration level.

ASIC/IC Static Verification Techniques

Figure 2 shows the ASIC/IC adoption trends for formal property checking (e.g., model checking), as well as automatic formal applications (e.g., SoC integration connectivity checking, deadlock detection, X semantic safety checks, coverage reachability analysis, and many other properties that can be automatically extracted and then formally proven). Formal property checking traditionally has been a high-effort process requiring specialized skills and expertise. However, the recent emergence of automatic formal applications provides narrowly focused solutions and does not require specialized skills to adopt. While formal property checking adoption is experiencing incremental growth between 2012 and 2014, the adoption of automatic formal applications increased by 62 percent during this period. What was interesting in 2016 was that formal property checking experience a 31 percent increase since the 2014 study, while automatic formal applications was essentially flat, which I suspect is a temporary phenomenon. Regardless, if you calculate the compounded annual growth rate between 2012 and 2016, you see healthy adoption growth for both, as shown in Figure 2.

BLOG-2016-WRG-figure-9-2

Figure 2. ASIC/IC Formal Technology Adoption

Emulation and FPGA Prototyping

Historically, the simulation market has depended on processor frequency scaling as one means of continual improvement in simulation performance. However, as processor frequency scaling levels off, simulation-based techniques are unable to keep up with today’s growing complexity. This is particularly true when simulating large designs that include both software and embedded processor core models. Hence, acceleration techniques are now required to extend SoC verification performance for very large designs. In fact, emulation and FPGA prototyping have become key platforms for SoC integration verification where both hardware and software are integrated into a system for the first time. In addition to SoC verification, emulation and FPGA prototyping are also used today as a platform for software development.

Figure 3 describes various reasons why projects are using emulation, while Figure 4 describes why FPGA Prototyping was performed. You might note that the results do not sum to 100 percent since multiple answers were accepted from each study participant.

BLOG-2016-WRG-figure-9-3

Figure 3. Why Was Emulation Performed?

BLOG-2016-WRG-figure-9-4

Figure 4. Why Was FPGA Prototyping Performed?

Figure 5 partitions the data for emulation and FPGA prototyping adoption by the design size as follows: less than 5M gates, 5M to 80M gates, and greater than 80M gates. Notice that the adoption of emulation continues to increase as design sizes increase. However, the adoption of FPGA prototyping levels off as design sizes increase beyond 80M gates. Actually, the level-off point is more likely around 40M gates or so since this is the average capacity limit of many of today’s FPGAs. This graph illustrates one of the problems with adopting FPGA prototyping of very large designs. That is, there can be an increased engineering effort required to partition designs across multiple FPGAs. However, better FPGA partitioning solutions are now emerging from EDA to address these challenges. In addition, better FPGA debugging solutions are also emerging from EDA to address today’s lab visibility challenges. Hence, I anticipate seeing an increase in adoption of FPGA prototyping for larger gate counts as time goes forward.

BLOG-2016-WRG-figure-9-5

Figure 5. Emulation and FPGA Prototyping Adoption by Design Size

In my next blog (click here) I plan to discuss various ASIC/IC language and library adoption trends.

Quick links to the 2016 Wilson Research Group Study results

, , , , , ,

21 September, 2016

FPGA Language and Library Trends

This blog is a continuation of a series of blogs related to the 2016 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study (click here).  In my previous blog (click here), I focused on FPGA verification techniques and technologies adoption trends, as identified by the 2016 Wilson Research Group study. In this blog, I’ll present FPGA design and verification language trends.

You might note that the percentage for some of the language that I present sums to more than one hundred percent. The reason for this is that many FPGA projects today use multiple languages.

FPGA RTL Design Language Adoption Trends

Let’s begin by examining the languages used for FPGA RTL design. Figure 1 shows the trends in terms of languages used for design, by comparing the 2012, 2014, and 2016 Wilson Research Group study, as well as the projected design language adoption trends within the next twelve months. Note that the language adoption is declining for most of the languages used for FPGA design with the exception of Verilog and SystemVerilog.

Also, it’s important to note that this study focused on languages used for RTL design. We have conducted a few informal studies related to languages used for architectural modeling—and it’s not too big of a surprise that we see increased adoption of C/C++ and SystemC in that space. However, since those studies have (thus far) been informal and not as rigorously executed as the Wilson Research Group study, I have decided to withhold that data until a more formal study can be executed related to architectural modeling and virtual prototyping.

BLOG-2016-WRG-figure-6-1

Figure 1. Trends in languages used for FPGA design

It’s not too big of a surprise that VHDL is the predominant language used for FPGA RTL design, although it is slowly declining when viewed as a worldwide trend. An important note here is that if you were to filter the results down by a particular market segment or region of the world, you would find different results. For example, if you only look at Europe, you would find that VHDL adoption as an FPGA design language is about 79 percent, while the world average is 62 percent. However, I believe that it is important to examine worldwide trends to get a sense of where the industry is moving in the future.

FPGA Verification Language Adoption Trends

Next, let’s look at the languages used to verify FPGA designs (that is, languages used to create simulation testbenches). Figure 2 shows the trends in terms of languages used to create simulation testbenches by comparing the 2012, 2014, and 2016 Wilson Research Group study, as well as the projected verification language adoption trends within the next twelve months.

BLOG-2016-WRG-figure-6-2

Figure 2. Trends in languages used in verification to create FPGA simulation testbenches

What is interesting in 2016 is that SystemVerilog overtook VHDL as the language of choice for building FPGA testbenches. But please note that the same comment related to design language adoption applies to verification language adoption. That is, if you were to filter the results down by a particular market segment or region of the world, you would find different results. For example, if you only look at Europe, you would find that VHDL adoption as an FPGA verification language is about 66 percent (greater than the worldwide average), while SystemVerilog adoption is 41 percent (less than the worldwide average).

FPGA Testbench Methodology Class Library Adoption Trends

Now let’s look at testbench methodology and class library adoption for FPGA designs. Figure 3 shows the trends in terms of methodology and class library adoption by comparing the 2012, 2014, and 2016 Wilson Research Group study, as well as the projected verification language adoption trends within the next twelve months.

BLOG-2016-WRG-figure-6-3

Figure 3. FPGA methodology and class library adoption trends

Today, we see a basically a flat or downward trend in terms of adoption of all testbench methodologies and class libraries with the exception of UVM, which has been growing at a healthy 10.7 percent compounded annual growth rate. The study participants were also asked what they plan to use within the next 12 months, and based on the responses, UVM is projected to increase an additional 12.5 percent.

By the way, to be fair, we did get a few write-in methodologies, such as OSVVM and UVVM that are based on VHDL. I did not list them in the previous figure since it would be difficult to predict an accurate adoption percentage. The reason for this is that they were not listed as a selection option on the original question, which resulted in a few write-in answers. Nonetheless, the data suggest that the industry momentum and focused has moved to SystemVerilog and UVM.

FPGA Assertion Language and Library Adoption Trends

Finally, let’s examine assertion language and library adoption for FPGA designs. The 2016 Wilson Research Group study found that 47 percent of all the FPGA projects have adopted assertion-based verification (ABV) as part of their verification strategy. The data presented in this section shows the assertion language and library adoption trends related to those participants who have adopted ABV.

Figure 4 shows the trends in terms of assertion language and library adoption by comparing the 2012, 2014, and 2016 Wilson Research Group study, and the projected adoption trends within the next 12 months. The adoption of SVA continues to increase, while other assertion languages and libraries are not trending at significant changes.

BLOG-2016-WRG-figure-6-4

Figure 4. Trends in assertion language and library adoption for FPGA designs

In my next blog (click here), I will shift the focus of this series of blogs and start to present the ASIC/IC findings from the 2016 Wilson Research Group Functional Verification Study.

Quick links to the 2016 Wilson Research Group Study results

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

18 August, 2016

A great technical program awaits you for DVCon India 2016!  The DVCon India Steering Committee and Technical Program Committee have put together another outstanding program.  The two-day event splits itself into two main technical tracks: one for the Design Verification professional [DV Track] and the other from the Electronic System Design professional [ESL Track].  The conference will be held on Thursday & Friday, 15-16 September 2016 at the Leela Palace in Bangalore.  The conference opens with industry keynotes and a round of technical tutorials the first day.  Wally Rhines, Mentor Graphics CEO, will be the first keynote of the morning on “Design Verification – Challenging Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow.”

Mentor Graphics at DVCon India

In addition to Wally’s keynote, Mentor Graphics has sponsored several tutorials which when combined with other conference tutorials shares information, techniques and tips-and-tricks that can be applied to your current design and verification challenges.

The conference’s other technical elements (Posters, Panels & Papers) will likewise feature Mentor Graphics participants.  You should visit the DVCon India website for the full details on the comprehensive and deep program that has been put together.  The breadth of topics makes it an outstanding program.

Accellera Portable Stimulus Standard (PSS)

The hit of the first DVCon India was the early discussion about the emerging standardization activity in Accellera on “Portable Stimulus.”  In fact, at the second DVCon India a follow-up presentation on PSS standardization was requested and given as well (Leveraging Portable Stimulus Across Domains and Disciplines).  This year will be no exception to cover the PSS topic.

The Accellera Tutorial for DVCon India 2016 is on the emerging Portable Stimulus Standard.  The last thing any design and verification team wants to do is to rewrite a test as a design progresses along a path from concept to silicon.  The Accellera PSS tutorial will share with you concepts being ratified in the standard to bring the next generation of verification productivity and efficiency to you to avoid this.  Don’t be surprised if the PSS tutorial is standing room only.  I suggest if you want a seat, you come early to the room.

Register

To attend DVCon India, you must register.  A discounted registration rates available through 30 August 2016.  Click here to register!  I look forward to see you at DVCon India 2016! If you can’t join us in person, track the Mentor team on social media or on Twitter with hashtag #DVCon.

, , , , , , , ,

@dennisbrophy tweets

Follow dennisbrophy

@dave_59 tweets

Follow dave_59

@jhupcey tweets

  • #ARM now hiring formal verification engineers in Austin: exciting tech challenge + Ram is a great guy to work with.…https://t.co/uwIXLHWqvg
  • Attention all SF Bay Area formal practitioners: next week Wednesday 7/26 on Mentor's Fremont campus the Verificatio…https://t.co/9Y0iFXJdYi
  • This is a very hands-on, creative role for a verification expert -- join us! https://t.co/jXWFGxGrpn

Follow jhupcey