Jump to content

uwes

Members
  • Content Count

    621
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Everything posted by uwes

  1. hi, you are using uvm1.2 with the uvm11 version of the cadence extensions. please choose one of the following 1. use the cadence distributed version in your install 'irun -uvmhome CDNS-1.2 ....' (no need for any other uvm compile/flags ...) 2. you point to the right extensions 'irun -uvmhome ...yourpath... -uvmexthome <cdnsinstall>/tools/methodology/UVM/CDNS-1.2 ....' i also see that you are using a very old version of ius and it is suggested to use a more recent one. /uwe
  2. hi, there are two questions you ask: 1. why is auto_predict=off the default?: normally auto_predict==off is the more versatile mode of operation. it works through a monitor when the real transaction is seen on the bus, it works in passive mode, it works with back-to-back transfers etc. 2. does setting auto-predict after the write help?: simply no. for auto predict to work the driver-sequencer handshake has to wait till the real end of transaction on the bus and it has to be switched on before the read/write operation.
  3. hi, the technical part of the error is that you missed to include the system functions into your command invication (something like -loadvpi, -svlib or similar). nevertheless i would recommend the file a support ticket to have this resolved. /uwe
  4. hello, again - its hard to suggest something if you cannot clarify what you mean with 'kill'. this could a everything from - killing via 'kill -9' on the os level (or via signals to the simulator) - $stop,$finish and friends - via calls to uvm api methods - through phase operations/jumps - through a message causing the simulation to end - through a 'coded' natural end - through an end of event (by "killing" the clock) - through an end caused by external code .... /uwe
  5. hi to answer the question we need to know 'how' your test is 'killed'. what mechanism is used to terminate? /uwe
  6. uwes

    Constraints

    a rand var which divides by 7 and 17 can be divided by 7*17 (since both are prime). so the constraint should be as simple as x % (7*17) == 0 //uwe
  7. uwes

    uvm_event with uvm1.2

    unless you wrap the string/int/bit in a class instance this will not work.
  8. uvm gives you the ability (via vpi) to write using ```uvm_hdl_deposit(string path, value)```
  9. i think this is yet another issue in the register model related to https://accellera.mantishub.io/view.php?id=5446
  10. Version 1.0.0

    57 downloads

    hi, this archive contains the code for a framework to build indirect registers in a flexible fashion. More insight are shown at dvcon2017-us /uwe
  11. sv should be supported too in hal. typically hal is more focused on rtl code. /uwe
  12. there are a few points to add here 1. since this a specific request for a particular tool please raise a request with your vendor 2. fork/disable etc are subject process control and are very close to grey area's of the vlog spec and/or races - so you might see differences in behviour 3. a much better solution than to disable the block are one of the two following: a) recode the for loop to a while loop >for (int k=0; k<64; k++) int k=0; int flag=1; while(k<64 && flag) do k++; .... // set flag to break done or B) wrap the for loop in a task and then terminate the task with a "return" upon the condition instead of a break /uwe
  13. hi, this comes from uvm_report_info/warning which for the uvm_object bar should refer to uvm_pkg::uvm_report_* functions. due to the nested class these refer to foo::uvm_report_* which is illegal. the underlying problem is that the function call uvm_report_* in the macros has been designed to either reference uvm_pkg::uvm_report_* or the functions directly visible in the current type "local"::uvm_report_*. a workaround is to add new uvm_report_* functions into bar forwarding the call to uvm_pkg::uvm_report_* /uwe
  14. hi a few answers Is it possible to factory overwrite a param. nope. params are elab time constants. you cannot change them later. factory usage requires that the override is a subtype of the override base type. #analysis ports with multiple instances can be done either using A) the decl macros, B) the uvm_subscriber or C) by folding all transactions into a meta transaction+channel id # you can factory override tlm classes given you register them plus you use create() to instantiate them. (ps: i havent checked what functions are virtual so that you can benefit from it) # param classes with different parameterisation needs to be factored so that there is a common *_base class which can be used as array element type. you may then set each array element to a derived class instance (which might have addon different parameters). even that will most likely not solve your problem since the base class doesnt see the actual param value. /uwe
  15. hi the difference is that with version one you create an object named "mem_tr" in the context of get_full_name() while with the second one you create an object named (long name with alot of dots) {get_full_name(), ".mem_tr"} in the uvm_root: context. Here it depends for which instances you set the factory override. for various reasons it is not a good habit to have object names involving dots or other non a-Z0-9_ characters. just think of print out of a.b.c.e.f and you allow "." in names then it could be "a" . "a.c.d.e.f" or "a.b" . "c.e.f" or any weird combination. with that you should avoid any get_full_name() in the name argument of the ctor. for the particular SDI warning the name should have no "." since this is considered a hierarchical delimiter (which for you isnt true).
  16. uvm11 had problems in this area. uvm12 should be better in some areas but still https://accellera.mantishub.io/view.php?id=4871
  17. hi the mentioned problem is part of https://accellera.mantishub.io/view.php?id=5446 the fix is quite long and affects a couple of uvm functions. /uwe
  18. Version 1

    595 downloads

    A small package illustrating a method to perform UVC resets in UVM without phasing interaction. The package includes 4 examples and documentation showing the package in action /uwe
  19. uwes

    UVM events with data.

    https://accellera.mantishub.io/view.php?id=5636
  20. hi, normally there is nothing bad with the fact to access a local member from a virtual function/task. functionality should be exposed via functions/tasks and never via member fields. in that sense opening the access to the local implementation detail g_request_id would be the wrong solution. the right course of action would be to encapsulate the static member g_request_id into an atomic accessor like in java AtomicInteger::incrementAndGet() and expose that in the base class instead. in this particular situation you can probably use an own id generator instead.... /uwe
  21. hi, ... this nasty timescale problem.... you got a few options 1. scale like dave suggests 2. force all timescales to be the same in your system 3. uvm could have implemented a workaround used in the tlm2 area (uvm_tlm_time) and use this data type to represent time instead of the broken,bad sv native "time" datatype. all uvm api would use this uvm_time data type ( 4. the solution i would prefer however is that the sv -1800 committee goes and provides a real "time" datatype which scales properly when switching timescale regions... (or even better get rid of timescale at all)
  22. uwes

    read register from RAL

    hi, i assume you are using uvm library coming with the cadence install. if so then there has been a leftover debug statement in the uvm_link* file in the uvm1.2 install. that issue got resolved in one of the hotfixes .... regards /uwe
  23. hi, the fix will be in the next version of uvm. this will be most likely the version matching the upcoming uvm-ieee release. /uwe
  24. hi, actually the 'bad' guy here is the line uvm_resource_db#(uvm_reg_block)::set("uvm_reg::*", get_full_name(), this); it simply doesnt make sense that every block stores itself in the config-db as part of the uvm library. see https://accellera.mantishub.com/view.php?id=5040
  25. hi, why dont you just use grab/lock from the frontdoor sequence on the sequencer running your parallel sequences ? obviously each thread should run an own instance of the frontdoor sequence in order that each instance can perform the necessary access sequence in an atomic fashion. essentially the lock/grab scheme allows you to block other sequences from executing items while your sequence is in an atomic/critical section. /uwe
×