LOGIN   :::   RECOVER PASS   :::   GET ACCOUNT    
Browse
  • Projects
  • Code (CVS)
  • Forums
  • News
  • Articles
  • Polls
  •  
    OpenCores
  • FAQ
  • CVS HowTo
  • Mission
  • Media
  • Tools
  • Advertise
  • Mirrors
  • Logos
  • Contact us
  • Job Opportunity
  •  
    Tools
  • Search
      
  • Download Cores (CVSGet)
  •  
    More
  • Wishbone
  • Perlilog
  • EDA tools
  • OpenTech CD
  •  
    Navigation: All forums > Cores > Message List > Message Post

    Message

    Reply | Reply all
    Date Prev | Date Next | Thread Prev | Thread Next Date Index | Thread Index

    From: Marko Mlinar <markom@o...>
    Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 15:20:55 +0200
    Subject: Re: [oc] Verilog coding style for Open Cores-RTL - Case in point SHA1
    Top

    On Wednesday 28 May 2003 15:04, Tom Hawkins wrote:
    > On Tuesday 27 May 2003 10:29 pm, Rudolf Usselmann wrote:
    > > On Wed, 2003-05-28 at 02:20, Tom Hawkins wrote:
    > > > On Tuesday 27 May 2003 11:58 am, Shehryar Shaheen wrote:
    > > > > So what would Sytem Verilog have in the offing that
    > > > >  SystemC doesn't ?
    > > > >
    > > > > Would you think that the reason that SystemC is not popular is
    > > > >  cause the learning curve associated with a new language tends
    > > > >  to put off many users who already have a firm grip over
    > > > > current HDLs ?
    > > >
    > > > SystemC is not popular because C, object-orientation, and
    > > > imperative programming are very poor languages and paradigms for
    > > > describing hardware systems.
    > >
    > > I have to disagree here, Tom. It's not the Object Oriented aspect
    > > that make a language like SystemC dis-liked by most HW designers.
    > > Matter of fact, Object Oriented languages are quite popular, look
    > > at Vera and E.
    >
    > Rudi, I agree with you here.  OO works well in the test bench.  But
    > for synthesizable RTL, how often you you code a StateMachine class
    > that inherits from BaseStateMachine and extend the Reset and
    > StateTransistion methods?
    
    Tom,
    
    don't underestimate OO for synthesis. Although OO may seem unsuitable for RTL 
    at first glance, but as a user of OO RTL language (for synthesis!) I can say 
    with much confidence, that it is useful at least for:
    - memory block, different vendors, etc...
    - pads
    - cores
    - interfaces
    ...
    
    The OO defines an abstraction in different way than just defining 'interface' 
    module as it is currently done in Verilog. For example you may define 
    wishbone interface:
    
    wire[31:0] x = wishbone.read(address);
    
    where 'read' is a part of bus interface interface.
    
    As you can see you have numerous posibilities to exploit OO, the problem is 
    just that HW enginners are not used to this way of thinking or even worse -- 
    they don't understand it and therefore they declare it as 'useless' toy for 
    SW guys ;)
    
    unfortunately I don't think SystemVerilog will have support for synthesisable 
    functions as it is done in the above case.
    
    best regads,
    Marko
    
    
    
    
    

    ReferenceAuthor
    Re: [oc] Verilog coding style for Open Cores-RTL - Case in pointSHA1Marco Antonio Simon Dal Poz
    Re: [oc] Verilog coding style for Open Cores-RTL - Case in pointSHA1Rudolf Usselmann
    Re: [oc] Verilog coding style for Open Cores-RTL - Case in point SHA1Tom Hawkins

    Follow upAuthor
    Re: [oc] Verilog coding style for Open Cores-RTL - Case in point SHA1Tom Hawkins

     
    Copyright (c) 1999 OPENCORES.ORG. All rights reserved.