Re: FW: [vhdl-200x] Call for Vote on Group Organization and PAR

Hi Stephen and all,
I have been waiting for this sort of discussion in the SG, and thanks to
Steve, we can finally discuss our direction.

I have to agree with some of Steve's points, including the declining use of
VHDL. However, I think that we can do something to stop this trend (of
people using non-VHDL design and verification languages). Perhaps instead of
doing the same things that SV has been doing over these years, we could
think of other things that could make VHDL more appealing.

My belief is that VHDL usage in Europe, Australia (and probably most of the
Commonwealth) remains strong. I don't have statistics though, but I am one
example of a VHDL-only user designing for a European application. One of the
really good thing about VHDL is that we don't really need such a
comprehensive verification package (like that used by Verilog / SV), the
reason being that VHDL is already very strongly typed - this means less
verification.

I hear VHDL designers say "If it works in simulation, it works on silicon",
but I don't hear the same from Verilog/SV designers. Instead they would talk
a lot about verifying their designs. The rationale is clear, Verilog/SV
needs very comprehensive verification (I even hear of great emphasis on lab
bench verification and FPGA emulation - for ASIC designers) to counter for
their weak typing, while VHDL being strongly-typed, does not require such
comprehensive verification capabilities.

I currently write everything in plain old VHDL - from the core designs to
even the testbenches. And I feel the language is sufficient for both
purposes (this perhaps is because my designs aren't as complex as some of
yours).

My humble opinion is that we should not try to do the same things those SV
guys have been doing (I agree with Steve on this), but instead focus our
energy on things that make VHDL easier to use, such as simplifying type
conversions, and friendlier packages.

I would propose that we make some of VHDL's core packages to easily work
together with one another. One simple example I can think of is in the use
of literals:

signal i: integer := x"ab";

where in this case, I can use the hex notation to express an integer instead
of writing out 16#ab#.

I further propose for certain packages to be synthesisable, such as the
math_real package (this would ease designers from having to write their own
fixed-point or floating-point packages).

Also, for certain constructs in the core language to be synthesisable, such
as "assert" or "report", which currently is exclusively used only in
simulation. I can think of something like a generic "debug interface" or
"verification interface", which can be synthesised to a real interface
reserved for debugging/verification purposes. And this interface allows for
the use of constructs such as "report" and "assert", while having
capabilities such as queuing of "reports" (or logs), and bus arbitration
(for multiple verification interfaces).

I am positive that with great minds as all of you, the SG/WG will be able to
brainstorm such great ideas to set the direction for the next revision of
VHDL.

Regards,
Daniel

On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 4:35 AM, Bailey, Stephen
<stephen_bailey@mentor.com>wrote:

> I have submitted my negative vote on the PAR to Jim. I am now
> forwarding the comments that document why I am voting Negative.
>
> -Steve Bailey
>
> The SG has spent all of its time discussing the organization of the WG
> as individual or entity/Corporate. I don't see anything in the minutes
> identifying the requirements for this revision. The recent flurry of
> emails has me concerned that the WG will duplicate significant work that
> has gone into SV by putting similar functionality into VHDL. I cannot
> support the waste of tens to hundreds of man-years to achieve that
> output with the only outcome being that people can do what they can do
> today only in 2 different languages instead of 1 (actually 4 different
> languages instead of 3 when you include e and Vera).
>
> VHDL usage was on the decline prior to SV. SV has accelerated that
> decline. I don't see a way to change the current course of the
> EDA/language trends. They are too strong and the cost to change them
> are prohibitive.
>
> Data which the SG may find useful. The data is from a recent blind
> survey commissioned by Mentor and conducted by Wilson Research Group.
> This data is from North America. The rest of the world portion of the
> survey was recently completed and the combined results not yet
> available.
>
> VHDL design usage declined from 37% in 2007 to 27% in 2010 with
> respondents projected a further decline to 23% in the next 12 months.
> That's a loss of nearly 40% of the design user base for VHDL.
>
> Verilog usage has declined from 81% to 78% and projected to go to 71%.
> SystemC, C/C++ and other design languages have also declined from 2007
> to 2010.
>
> SV has increased from 10% to 34% today and projected to reach 47% in the
> next year. That's a nearly 5x increase in usage.
>
> In verification, VHDL usage is down to 21%, from 27%, and projected to
> fall further. In fact, there are only two languages that have increased
> usage in verification: SystemVerilog usage in verification more than
> doubled to 50% and is projected to increase significantly in the next
> year. C/C++ has seen a respectable increase from 2007 but is projected
> to decline slightly in the next year. Even SystemC usage in
> verification is down slightly from 2007 -- call it steady at about 17%.
>
> The survey included FPGA and ASIC designs and respondents from all
> industries/markets. Although data from the rest of the world might
> soften a bit what is being reported in NA, based on my personal
> experience, I don't expect it to be meaningful in any area except maybe
> SystemC, which has historically higher use in Europe and Japan than in
> the U.S.
>
> In the next year, 80% (4 of every 5) of designers and verification
> engineers will use a language that is not VHDL. Most of them will be
> using SV or Verilog.
>
> The SG needs to ask itself these questions: Can you stop a tsunami?
> What can you offer that would overcome a projected 3x+ advantage that SV
> will have over VHDL in verification usage within the next year; and
> surely greater than that 2 or 3 years from now. If the plan is to
> survive the tsunami, what will you do to survive it when EDA vendors
> clearly know where the market is going? Until these questions are
> addressed in a manner that reflects reality, my vote will remain No on
> another VHDL language revision.
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
>

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.