Verilog HDL

Title: Verilog HDL
Location: www.cvcblr.com
Link out: Click here
Description: Basic Verilog HDL
Start Date: 2009-11-25
End Date: 2009-11-26

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Did you miss multiple-inheritance in SystemVerilog?

Image
As some of our customers ask during our advanced SystemVerilog/UVM training sessions, SystemVerilog doesn’t allow multiple-inheritance. Or to be precise “DID NOT have”, now in SV-2012/2013 it does! For those yet to get there – here is  a quick recap:     Simple inheritance                  Few derived classes             One can of-course “derive” from another “derived class” too, as-in:   This is used widely in good System Verilog code and in general any OOP code. UVM uses this a lot as many of you who have been fortunate to have attended our popular UVM training sessions ( http://www.cvcblr.com/trainings ) across the world (Yes, we have delivered across India, various cities, across the globe as in Europe, Asia etc.). However what was not allowed in older SystemVerilog (2005/2009) is: Multiple inheritance, as in:...
Read more

SystemVerilog UVM comparer – hidden gem in show_max

Image
Recently a customer sought a help on how does the UVM’s built-in scoreboard mechanism works, specifically in_order and algorithmic comparators. While he was able to use them well in his design, it when things fail – i.e. he potentially found a design bug he needed additional assistance in debug. By default the UVM framework provides compare() routine for transaction/ uvm_sequence_item . However unlike its predecessor HVLs such as the “E” language (IEEE 1647) or the OpenVera, System Verilog does not have the compare routine built-in to the language itself (for classes). Hence UVM adds it via base class and more. So when we have a transaction model such as: Now by virtue of inheritance, a handy method my_xactn::compare is available.  So one can use it to compare 2 objects of this type as shown below:   Note: in the above code snippet the return value of compare is unused, in actual code of-course you should assert it/throw an `uvm_error etc. Now, when we simulate this wit...
Read more

Simple assertion can save hours of debug time

Image
Recently a user sought to assign a 4-state array (declared as logic ) from the DUT side to a 2-state, bit typed array on TB side. Quite normal and intelligent choice of datatype – as all the TB components at higher level should work on abstract models. However there are 2 important notes – one on the “syntax/semantic” and other on real functional aspect. Focusing on the functional aspect first (as the semantic would be caught by the compiler anyway), what if the DUT signal contained X/Z on the 4-state array value?       When you assign it to the 2-state array counterpart on the TB side – there is information loss and potentially wrong data :-(   Here is where a simple assertion could save hours of debug time for you. Recall that SV has a handy system-function to detect unknown values. One could write a simple assertion using that function at the DUT-TB boundary. See the full code below, with the assertion part highlighted:   With the SVA inc...
Read more