Hardware Emulation becoming more and more affordable

Read: http://www.your-story.org/eve%E2%80%99s-latest-emulator-offers-the-lowest-cost-of-ownership-in-the-industry-62042/

 

With the so called “penny-per-gate” pricing – sure is a marketing gimmick, it is becoming more and more viable to explore low cost emulation stuff. We still see that our customers continue to rely on own, self cooked FPGA boards, but with such innovative business models it may be changing soon..

 

Good job Eve folks – I wonder if they allow sharing “across customers” – say we host one Zebu server at CVC and allow several customers to log-in and pay-per-use!

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