RE: [vhdl-200x] Requirements to do verification

From: Bailey, Stephen <>
Date: Fri Apr 22 2011 - 13:31:45 PDT


Sounds like you have identified what the (job) market needs.

What's the smart thing to do? Create a product that the market needs?

Or convince the market that it doesn't need what it thinks it needs, instead it needs something else? If so, what does that something else offer that gives it significantly more value than what the market knows it requires?

And, consider market windows. Will your superior offering gain market acceptance if it is delivered 5 years from now? Will the inertial barriers to entry be too great by then or will the creator of that speculative product go bankrupt first?

-Steve Bailey

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of Ken Campbell
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 12:37 PM
Subject: Re: [vhdl-200x] Requirements to do verification

Hello everyone,
As an answer to the question.
I think the additions to VHDL should enable the implementation of a "look
and feel" of UVM. Initially the target should be the objects that provide
the most value to a verification environment. Like some kind of subset of
UVM that would enable the most important verification tasks to be
automated, basic building blocks and interfacing...

The reason I say this is because there is a wave of SV usage. I currently
can not get employed because I do not have experience with any SV methods,
but have been doing verification for 15 years now. I got left behind
using a VHDL test bench system I published on OpenCores. Now after 3
months, at least 10 ASIC/FPGA verification jobs have gone by because of my
lack of specific verification tool methods / language.

So, to improve the chances of cross employment and standardization for the
future of verification people, I recommend a UVM methods implementation as
a target for VHDL language enhancements.

As Jim said, VHDL is very capable and very much alive. I have recently
started a blog describing how to best use the VHDL test bench package I
published. This has increased the downloads from 1-3 per day to 4-7. The
blog is getting more attention than I thought it would and for me that is
evidence that VHDL is very much alive.

Is this the kind of input you were looking for?

Ken Campbell

> All,
> If we are to make VHDL a viable verification language,
> what features do we require?
> I am thinking the main ones are functional coverage,
> randomization, data structures (ie: scoreboards,
> memories, fifos, ...) and interfaces.
> While I realize some have expressed concern about a language's
> ability to be suited for both design (RTL and above) and
> verification, I am not sure I agree. I think a frugal
> implementation of all of the above is possible.
> The more I work with VHDL the more I am impressed by the
> capability.
> Best,
> Jim
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Jim Lewis
> Director of Training
> SynthWorks Design Inc.
> 1-503-590-4787
> Expert VHDL Training for Hardware Design and Verification
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> --
> 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.
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Received on Fri Apr 22 13:32:12 2011

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Apr 22 2011 - 13:32:36 PDT