dave_59

Members
  • Content count

    370
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About dave_59

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://go.mentor.com/drich

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. You could extend your class from uvm_report_object. But this also creates a uvm_report_handler object which has a lot of overhead. A few other options are Avoid using a nested class. What is it doing for you in this situation? Define the class bar at the same level as foo. Avoid using the `uvm_field macros - also a lot of overhead.
  2. You might want to see http://forums.accellera.org/topic/1967-problems-with-starting-phase/
  3. New link to mantis issue https://accellera.mantishub.io/view.php?id=4969
  4. The original intent of the phases in the OVM was to help with the initialization and shutdown of a simulation. The OVM phases mimic what happens in other environments like SystemC. end_of_elaboration is after all the elements of your testbench are constructed, and start_of_simulation is the initialization of your testbench. The phases make good breaking points for debug and checkpoints for restoring. The problem with phases in general is that unless you get everyone to universally agree on what goes in each phase, they lose their effectiveness.
  5. I would use the forum on EDAplayground to contact them,
  6. I think the problem is with EDAplayground.com appending extra characters at the end of each line. Look carefully at the error messages coming from each tool and you'll see a good explanation of the problem. I believe Aldec is incorrectly ignoring that extra character, so it appears that it is "working".
  7. This works for me in Modelsim/Questa. Note that the newline has been escaped and the resulting string will be displayed as a single line. If you want a newline embedded in the string, you need to add \n.
  8. Hi Linc, No to your first query. There is a difference when interacting with clocking block inputs ##0 delays. The clocking block event cb1 is guaranteed to happen after the clocking block inputs have been updated with sampled values,and ##0 will never block. My general rule when you have a process interacting with clocking block inputs and outputs, always synchronize that process to the clocking block event. And yes to your second query, unless a clocking block output is driving an input to the interface.
  9. Use uvm_config_db#(BaseA)::set() to match the uvm_config_db#(BaseA)::get() Then you need to test the result of the $cast to know if the object was overridden or not.
  10. It's an artifact of the UVM implementation that stores the children (siblings) in an associative array indexed by a string. I would never rely on the ordering of components at the same level within the same phase.
  11. Hi Walker, Communicating time values across multiple timescale domains has been a gotcha in Verilog since day one. Timescales only apply to scaling of literal time values, not values of variables or passed arguments. Therefore, you should always use a literal time value in any expression involving time to a normalized time unit. Unfortunately, they didn't do this inside the UVM library. So if your UVM package is compiled with a default of timescale of 1ps, then you should do this to normalize it : uvm_top.set_timeout(2000000ns/1ps, 1); -Dave
  12. You use fork/join_any statements when you want to create a number of time consuming processes and block waiting for one of them to finish. You create two processes, but they do not bloc - the finish immediately because they have fork/join_none statements in them . What you probably meant was something like initial begin me[0] = 1; me[1] = 2; me[2] = 3; repeat(5) begin : repeat_loop fork begin : b1 foreach(me) fork automatic int id = me; print_value (10+id,id); join_none wait fork; end : b1 begin :b2 foreach(me) fork automatic int id = me; print_value (20+id,id); join_none wait fork; end : b2 join_any disable fork; $display(" Disable Fork "); end :repeat_loop $display("@%g Came out of fork-join", $time); #20 $finish; end // initial begin
  13. already answered here:https://verificationacademy.com/forums/systemverilog/use-intersection-cross-coverpoints
  14. The syntax is assert ( randomize(index) with { index inside { [1:5] } ; } ) else begin It's the same {} as if you wrote named constraint block. Each constraint within the {} needs to be terminated with a semi-colon constraint range_constraint { index inside { [1:5] } ; }