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: Joachim Strömbergson<Joachim.Strombergson@I...>
    Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 16:32:16 +0200
    Subject: Re: [oc] Verilog coding style for Open Cores-RTL - Case in pointSHA1
    Top

    Aloha!
    
    Tom Hawkins wrote:
    > I agree a multi-function tool is not as useful as a good as a well 
    > stocked toolbox.  This same argument applies to SystemVerilog too -- 
    > they are trying to add verification constructs by borrowing features 
    > from other languages.  A better approach would be to translate 
    > Verilog into whatever language is convenient for verification: C, 
    > Java, Perl, Python, etc.  Verilator and VTOC already do this for C.  
    > (Writing this paragraph just convinced me to build a Python generator 
    > for Confluence.  Thanks!)
    
    You're welcome. ;-)
    
    I believe that the stuff added by Co-Design to Verilog in order to create 
    Superlog were wery whell balanced and well thought out. They really extended 
    the language and fixed deficits that were highly needed. Also the SYSTEMEX 
    tool made it very easy to get back to vanilla Verilog.
    
    SystemVerilog extends this even further and there might be stuff there that 
    makes it look like a complex multi-tool. Hopefully there is enough customer 
    demand for SystemVerilog to get the EDA vendors to implement it.
    
    But you're right, if the ability to implement newer VHDL- and Verilog version 
    is an indication, there might take a looong time until the whole design flow 
    supports at least the synthesisable part of SystemVerilog. There are still 
    tools out there that don't implement VHDL'93 and support for Verilog-2001 is 
    quite rare.
    
    In projects I have been part of, there have been mandated rules on what subset 
    of the RTL language that is allowed to be used. (Oh no Rudi, design rules! ;-) 
    The reason for this is that more than once, one or two tools used in the flow 
    have not implemented one feature or the other of the language. Exteremely 
    conservative RTL is the way to go.
    
    To competsate for the conservatism, Perl, Make and all kinds of other 
    languages (Confluence woule be a good candidate) are used to generate and 
    control the RTL.
    
    -- 
    Med vänlig hälsning, Yours
    
    Joachim Strömbergson - Alltid i harmonisk svängning.
    VP, Research & Development
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    InformAsic AB / Hugo Grauers gata 5B / SE-411 33 GÖTEBORG / Sweden
    Tel: +46 31 68 54 90  Fax: +46 31 68 54 91  Mobile: +46 733 75 97 02
    E-mail: joachim.strombergson@i...  Home: www.informasic.com
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    
    
    
    

    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 pointSHA1Joachim
    Re: [oc] Verilog coding style for Open Cores-RTL - Case in point SHA1Tom Hawkins

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