What are your painpoints with SystemVerilog ABV adoption?

While there is so much talk about ABV in the market, the adoption is still far less than desired/expected by the buzz! Harry Foster from Mentor tries to find some rationale in his new blog at:

http://blogs.mentor.com/verificationhorizons/blog/2009/12/06/abv-and-people-from-missouri/#comment-6

 

Here is what we from CVC feel about it (also added as comments in that blog).

>> What are the obstacles you see to adoption?

Major one I hear from RTL folks often is the verbosity associated (as of SystemVerilog 2005) with using OVL-like libraries. Especially existing users of 0-in checkerware are so much pampered by the ease of use and the value it adds - though their management may have the extra $$ as concern - it is hard for them to appreciate the need to type-type-type the “clock, reset” mundane stuff! It was all being “inferred” so far and suddenly come a standard language/implementation such as SVA and that takes them back in history! Refer to AMD’s excellent presentation on OVL TC for a proof! True, the new (very new I must say) “checker” construct along with $inferred* takes care of it (sigh… it lacks $inferred_enable). We cover these in our recently published SVA Handbook 2nd edition (http://www.systemverilog.us/sva_info.html) and also in upcoming DVCon 2010 paper.

Cheers
Srini
http://www.cvcblr.com

 

What do you have to say? Please comment, your views will hopefully help in shaping up future SystemVerilog standard!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Easier PLI integration with MPSim

SystemVerilog Soft constraints usage in `uvm_do_with macro

Smart one-liner for bit inversion in SystemVerilog