Agree with John here. It doesn't take too much usage of System C, "e", or Vera, to get those numbers.
These are my thoughts based on what I observe day to day in my job. They are not meant to be a position statement from my company. As tool suppliers, we can't typically comment on the technologies used by customers.
In general terms, if you consider say the three largest companies in the US and what languages are being used across that space, 8% usage of Vera for instance, is believable.
Go look at the job postings in the high level verification space at places like Qualcomm, Intel, Texas Instruments, LSI, IBM, et al.
While most will list System Verilog, OVM,VMM and UVM, the precursor to all those methodologies were the "SysC Verif. library", "eRM" and Vera RVM.
Those languages are still being used today, although many customers are moving to System Verilog and also System C for verification.
Designers are still coding and implementing RTL in Verilog and VHDL, but this space is also slowly adopting System Verilog design constructs as the tools begin to support them.
Migration doesn't happen overnight, especially if you have a large, time tested suite of testbenches in a particular technology. Why change it if it is still working and supported?
Where should VHDL go from here?
Looking at some of the ways that current VHDL users are doing Constrained Random and putting that into some sort of standard package certainly seems like something that would be usable and worthwhile.
Adding and or clarifying how VHDL interfaces and operates with both System C and System Verilog also seems to be something to explore?
Standardizing the signal spy / hdl_xmr methodology to enable cross hierarchical references also is something I see users needing on a daily basis and something that currently requires a duplicate code base, as each vendor has their own interpretation.
Nearly every environment I see today uses a mix of languages, methodologies and tools. Adding features to VHDL to help it better play in the above space would be a better use of resources, than adding a laundry list of new constructs and features that will take vendors and customers years to implement.
Sent via Verizon Wireless 4GLTE
----- Reply message -----
From: "Daniel Kho" <daniel.kho@gmail.com>
To: "vhdl-200x@eda.org" <vhdl-200x@eda.org>
Cc: "owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org" <owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org>, "Bailey, Stephen" <stephen_bailey@mentor.com>
Subject: [vhdl-200x] Marketing Surveys are prohibited by IEEE
Date: Wed, Apr 27, 2011 5:59 am
Hi John,
This is interesting to know. Are these people working exclusively with SV designers, or do they also work with VHDL designers?
I for one (I'm not too sure about others) have worked only with VHDL people, and haven't heard of anyone using SystemC. I know people who use SV for verification though.
Anyway, I know people now tend to use high-level synthesis languages (like SystemC) to design hardware, and this is another layer of abstraction higher than the underlying hardware description languages. From the organisations I've been, they have separate software teams that do these things. Yes, they call it the Software/Firmware team, because they program in C (or SystemC). Current FPGA companies do have their own C compilers that are used by software developers to design certain applications in C. I believe the same applies to the ASIC world, where SystemC is being used. Basically, the C compilers will compile the C sources to HDLs, which are then re-compiled by the HDL synthesis tools.
Well, I don't really mind working with these people (software engineers). As designs get larger and more complex, there is a need for both software engineers (working on C and HLS tools), and also hardware designers using native HDL. There will be some critical blocks (high-speed blocks for example) that must be designed directly using HDL, while there are other blocks which would be more cost-effectively and more feasibly designed by software engineers (simply because they do not have too stringent performance requirements, and those blocks would take too much effort if designed using native HDL).
Also, from my perspective, software engineers tend to use the same HLS tools for design and verification of their firmware blocks (which gets synthesised to hardware in the end). And, hardware designers prefer to use the same language for design and verification of their hardware blocks (just my opinion). I believe this is the current state of the industry right now. At least, for the few places I've been, I notice hardware designers tend to use the same tools and language to do their work; same story with the software designers.
So, my point is that while the usage trend for HLS tools like SystemC "seems" to be on the rise, this does not mean hardware engineers will lose their jobs. Modern designs currently require both disciplines to be successful in the market.
Regards,
Daniel
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 7:07 PM, <john.aynsley@doulos.com<mailto:john.aynsley@doulos.com>> wrote:
Daniel,
Just for your info, use of SystemC, Vera, and "e" is widespread (I meet these people on a regular basis, as I know do other people on this reflector). You don't hear so much about Vera and "e" jobs because their use tends (as a generalization) to be on legacy projects rather than new adoption.
Cheers,
John A
From: Daniel Kho <daniel.kho@gmail.com<mailto:daniel.kho@gmail.com>>
To: vhdl-200x@eda.org<mailto:vhdl-200x@eda.org>
Cc: "Bailey, Stephen" <stephen_bailey@mentor.com<mailto:stephen_bailey@mentor.com>>
Date: 27/04/2011 11:31
Subject:
Re: [vhdl-200x] Marketing Surveys are prohibited by IEEE
Sent by: owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org<mailto:owner-vhdl-200x@eda.org>
________________________________
Hi all,
Just for the record:
"Meanwhile, I'd still like to find out how 16% of respondents claimed to be using SystemC as a "verification language"; why I've never met any of these people; why 8% of verification engineers are still using Vera; why I don't know anyone who's still using Vera and why I haven't seen any Vera job postings for years"
I too haven't met a single person using SystemC or Vera or "e". And I thought if the claims that UVM (or OVM or whatever) was so widespread in use, I am still wondering why I haven't been exposed to these in my current and previous employments, when I too had to do some level of verification? Well, just my thoughts.
Regards,
Daniel
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Evan Lavelle <eml-vhdl-200x@cyconix.com<mailto:eml-vhdl-200x@cyconix.com>> wrote:
On 27/04/2011 00:29, Bailey, Stephen wrote:
Evan, you are just being insulting now. How can you make such
accusations without having no information on the methodology used?
Well, it certainly wasn't intended to be insulting; my apologies to anyone who was offended. In answer to your question, my comments were made precisely because the data was presented without any information on the methodology.
One of the things I actually get paid for is data analysis, and I spend a fair amount of time separating "fact" from "statistics". I am fully prepared to accept that Mentor has no axe to grind, and has done the rest of us a service by sharing the results of this survey, but that doesn't mean that the results can be taken at face value, any more than for any other data collection exercise.
Dennis has posted an interesting link. I haven't had the time to look at this in detail, but the first thing that's obvious, and important, is that 47% of the respondents described themselves as "non-FPGA verification engineers", and 14% as "FPGA verification engineers". It seems to me that this might conceivably seriously skew any interpretation of overall language usage.
I couldn't actually find your data in the blog posts - have I missed something? As far as I can make out, Harry Foster hasn't yet published the language statistics, and the figures you gave are from Wally Rhines' DVCON chart, which you've described as "languages used in verification". You do also say, for VHDL, "16% projected this year", but it wasn't obvious to me that all the other figures on the right, which I'd taken to be current usage, are actually (according to the chart) "next 12 months" projections.
It'll be interesting to get Harry's take on the figures when he's done. Meanwhile, I'd still like to find out how 16% of respondents claimed to be using SystemC as a "verification language"; why I've never met any of these people; why 8% of verification engineers are still using Vera; why I don't know anyone who's still using Vera and why I haven't seen any Vera job postings for years; what actually qualifies as "SystemVerilog" usage; where the "next 12 months" projections come from; and so on.
-Evan
-- 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<http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner<http://www.mailscanner.info/>, and is believed to be clean. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner<http://www.mailscanner.info/>, 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 Wed Apr 27 07:29:54 2011
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Apr 27 2011 - 07:30:11 PDT