Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 07/08/2019 in Posts

  1. 3 points
    The Accellera SystemC AMS Working Group released the 2020 edition of the SystemC AMS User's Guide. You will find the user's guide on this page: https://www.accellera.org/downloads/standards/systemc This version of the user's guide is fully compatible with the SystemC AMS standard released as IEEE Std. 1666.1-2016. It describes all the features introduced in the SystemC AMS language standard during the last decade. For example, the user’s guide now explains the use of the dynamic timed data flow capabilities, to make AMS system simulations even more efficient and running even faster. The SystemC AMS Working Group is currently preparing the release of the user's guide application examples as separate download. Availability of these application examples will be communicated at a later stage. Please use this forum to post your questions or remarks on the user's guide.
  2. 3 points

    TLM CPU modeling

    There is no such thing as CPU TLM modeling. Usually you write a C/C++ processor model with the needed accuracy (instruction accurate, cycle approximate, cycle accurate) and wrap it in a way that you translate memory accesses into TLM socket accesses. Along with that you need to manage to syncronization of the time of your model and the SystemC time (to run e.g. in loosly timed mode). Another task is to take the returned execution time of the bus accesses into account for the execution of the CPU model. This involves also the selection and implementation of the accesses (DMI & blocking or non-blocking). You can find a complete example of an instruction accurate VP at https://git.minres.com/DVCon2018/RISCV-VP (or https://git.minres.com/VP/RISCV-VP which is a newer version). The wrapper for the C++ model in SystemC can be found at https://git.minres.com/DVCon2018/RISCV-VP/src/branch/develop/riscv.sc/incl/sysc/core_complex.h To put it straight: doing this correctly is a non-trivial task as it is the implementation of a micro-architecture model of a CPU. One option is to build an instruction accurate ISS and add a microarchitecture model like it is done in the ESECS project (https://github.com/MIPS/esesc) BR
  3. 2 points

    sc_clock Doubt

    sc_clock triggers itself based on the period and the (in your case default) constructor settings. The period is the default_time_unit.
  4. 2 points
    You are initailaizing fl_ptr during consturction, not during execution. In generator.hpp you have: float* fl_ptr = reinterpret_cast<float*>(dmi_mem); //ovo sam ja pisao This never updates fl_ptr to the actual value of dmi_ptr. Actually your access should look like: if (dmi_valid) { dmi_mem = dmi.get_dmi_ptr(); //dmi_mem is pointer to ram[] array in memory.h float* fl_ptr = reinterpret_cast<float*>(dmi_mem); for (int i = 0; i != 20; ++i) fl_ptr[i] = 12.7; }
  5. 2 points
    Your sc_trace function is a member function of the TraceList class and cannot be called like the sc_trace functions coming with the SystemC reference implementation. Those are free functions in the sc_core namespace. Moreover your sc_trace implementation is non-static so it cannot be used without a TraceList object. You need to move the function out of the class scope. Basically this is a valid approach to setup complex types. But under performance considerations I would suggest to use a different container. Best choices are std::vector or std::dqueue. And if you are using C++ 11 I would replace the while loop with a range based loop, something like: for(auto& val: var.lst) { // use namespace, compiler otherwise chooses wrong function sc_core::sc_trace(tf, val, nm + std::to_string(pos++)); }
  6. 2 points
    2 days! That's fast response Exactly! If you're not open in the design/pre-release phase you're likely to miss use cases and if the members have committed themselves to solutions and switched their focus to other tasks I imagine that there will be an unwillingness to go back and redo things even if new important insights have been revealed. I think most users would like a code base they can build upon, not one that needs adaptations to make it work. Being fully transparent about the code in the making will reduce the risk for such adaptations What I'm suggesting is free and efficient access to the collective intelligence of the entire community at a point in the development cycles where it makes the most difference. I'm not suggesting a shift in the rights to make the final decisions. That's exclusive to the paying members. What's preventing this from happening within Accellera?
  7. 2 points
    Please be aware, that an sc_and_event_list does not imply that the events in the list are triggered at the same time. I would suggest to keep the only the clock sensitivity and act on the triggers in the body of the method instead: SC_METHOD(func2); sensitive << clk.pos(); dont_initialize(); // ... void func2() { if( nreset.posedge() ) { // nreset went high in this clock cycle // ... } } Alternatively, you can be sensitive to nreset.pos() and check for clk.posedge() (as a consistency check), if you don't have anything else to do in the body of the method. With this approach, you might be able to avoid unnecessary triggers of the method. Side note to Eyck: There's a small typo in the example above, which should should use "&=" to append to an sc_event_and_list. ev_list &= nreset;
  8. 2 points
    Unfortunately I'm not with a member company. I was hoping that I'd have read permissions regardless of my current affiliation. As a user I'd like to see the connection between discussions in the official forum, the issues reported to the issue management system, and the code being developed in response to that. The ability to immediately test that code and possibly give feedback as code comments or a pull request. More like Github, Gitlab and other platforms. Seems to me that this would be a more efficient way to give and get user feedback.
  9. 2 points
    Actually, you can start a sequence in any phase. It is more important to understand the domain/scheduling relationships between the task based (i.e. runtime) phases. UVM undergoes a number of pre-simulation phases (build, connect, end_of_elaboration, start_of_simulation) that are all implemented with functions. Once those are completed, the task based phases begin. The standard includes two schedules. One is simply the run_phase, which starts executing at time zero and continues until all components have dropped their objections within the run_phase. The other schedule contains twelve phases that execute parallel to the run phase. They are: pre_reset, reset, post_reset, pre_config, config, post_config, pre_main, main, post_main, pre_shutdown, shutdown, and post_shutdown. They execute in sequence. Every component has the opportunity to define or not define tasks to execute these phases. A phase starts only when all components in the previous phase have dropped their objections. A phase continues to execute until all components have dropped their objections in the current phase. Many companies use the run_phase for everything because there are some interesting issues to consider when crossing phase boundaries. In some respects it may be easier to use uvm_barriers for synchronization. Drivers and monitors (things that touch the hardware) are usally run exclusively in the run_phase, but there is nothing to prevent them also having reset_phase, main_phase, etc...
  10. 1 point
    AFAICS you don't increment the index i in the while loop. But your code is way to complex.: std::ifstream ifs("TEXT.txt"); if(ifs.is_open()){ int buf = 0; for (int i = 0; i < MEM_DEPTH; i++) { ifs >> buf; buff_1[i]=buf } } ifs.close(); should replace everything from fopen() until fclose(). And you should avoid using macros, they will bite you. '#define MEM_DEPTH 20' should become 'const size_t MEM_DEPTH=20;'.
  11. 1 point
    David Black

    A weird question about UVM

    UVM is all about reuse. Reuse has several different aspects: Reuse of an engineers knowledge -- those experienced with UVM can usually jump onto an existing or new UVM project with very little ramp time. I have seen some verification environments using their own methodology that literally took months for new engineers to come up to speed on. Mind you misuse of UVM can lead to the same conclusion if you don't stay within the standard itself. Reuse of verification components -- means you can reuse a UVM environment without editing a single line of code provided by that environment. This is huge. It is possible to purchase UVM components that test standard interfaces (e.g., 1G Ethernet) and not have to create the code yourself. It still requires the expertise to plug the component into your environment, but it is relatively easy to do. UVM also means application of a tried and tested methodology rather than role your own. Downsides to UVM include: UVM is fairly complex and to get the most out of it generally requires training UVM is fairly large as a body of code and has a lot of boilerplate code Bottom-line: You don't have to use UVM to verify your code, but if your designs are large enough, it seem crazy not to adopt it. You can hire employees and contractors that know how to do leverage UVM and purchase components to shorten your design task. For small/tiny designs, it may not make sense.
  12. 1 point

    Error E0304 and C2665

    The example you are refering to is for SystemC 2.0 and more over has errors. Actually this is a bad example to start with. the sc_start() in line 17 needs to be commented out for 2 reasons: a) it doesn't make any sense and b) it runs elaboration and tracing (VCD) needs to be initialized before that. After elaboration you cannot add signals for tracing anymore sc_start() (lines 32, 34, 40, 42, 47, 49, 56 58) has to be called either without any arguments (so it runs to the end) or with a duration in terms of sc_time like this: sc_start(1, SC_NS); My recommendation would be to either use the Doulus tutorials: https://www.doulos.com/knowhow/systemc/tutorial/ or the stuff from SCLive (https://sclive.wordpress.com/)
  13. 1 point

    UVM Library Test Suite and Git Repository

    Hi, I just downloaded the UVM library but I couldn't find any tests verifying its functionality. Are such tests available? Also, is the git repository from which the library was released open? Thanks
  14. 1 point
    You dot need a reference to the covergroup class. You can omit this line of code: cg_fsm_state cg_fsm_state_inst; In the constructor you are calling new directly on the coverage class name: cg_fsm_state = new();
  15. 1 point
    I found an example on the Doulos webpage. The code is in the EDAPlayground: https://www.edaplayground.com/x/4vf Hope this helps.
  16. 1 point


    SC_MODULE(Fsm) { sc_in<bool> clk; sc_in<bool> reset; sc_in<bool> is_valid; sc_in<bool> is_half_dollar; sc_out<bool> is_dispensed; SC_CTOR(Fsm) { SC_THREAD(fsm_thread); sensitive << clk.pos(); }; void fsm_thread() { typedef enum {S0=0, S1=1, S2=2, S3=3} state_e; state_e state = S0; while(true) { is_dispensed.write(false); if(reset.read() == false) { switch(state) { case S0: if(is_valid.read() == true && is_half_dollar.read() == true) state = S1; else state = S2; break; case S1: if(is_valid.read() == true && is_half_dollar.read() == true) state = S2; else state = S3; break; case S2: if(is_valid.read() == true) state = S3; break; case S3: is_dispensed.write(true); state = S0; break; default: state = S0; } } else state = S0; wait(); } }//fsm_thread };
  17. 1 point
    You should seriously read the SystemC standard or related books. Neither SC_METHOD nor SC_THREAD pass time, time advances only in the SystemC kernel and the kernel returns control to them at certain time points. The difference is that SC_THREAD preserves state when returning control to the kernel by calling wait(). SC_METHOD cannot preserve the state (it is always called as a function) and is therefore not allowed to call wait(). next_trigger() tells the SC kernel when to invoke the SC_METHOD next time. Calling next_trigger() several times in the same method as you do it is meaningless as the last call to next_trigger() prevails. Again: next_trigger() does not stop execution rather tells the kernel when to start the method next time.
  18. 1 point
    David Black

    System c help

    For your specific problem just Google "C++ read CSV": https://thispointer.com/how-to-read-data-from-a-csv-file-in-c/ https://www.gormanalysis.com/blog/reading-and-writing-csv-files-with-cpp/ For C++ try: https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/c-plus-plus/ http://www.cplusplus.com/doc/tutorial/
  19. 1 point

    syntax problems

    You can access elements using array index operator like this: in2[0][1]=42.0; But you write you want to put values onto the array. You cannot write onto ports as these are only proxys and do not hold values. You need to create a similar sc_signal array and connect it to the ports. sc_signals hold values so you can put values on them using write(). A side node: you should declare your vectors as: sc_vector<sc_vector<sc_in<float>>> in2{"in2", 4, [](char const* name, size_t idx) -> sc_vector<sc_in<float>>*{ return new sc_vector<sc_in<float>>(name, 4); }}; This names your ports (very helpful when tracing values) and you don't need to call init() separately.
  20. 1 point

    Debug assertion fails when using sc_trace

    You create 5 signals carrying a TraceVector. Doing so the default constructor is used which does reserve space for elements but has a size of 0... I can't tell where the assertion comes from. For those cases a debugger is pretty helpfull B-)
  21. 1 point
    Thanks for reporting this issue! I think your use case is justified. However, the decision to not installing the header seems to have been made on purpose as utils/sc_stop_here.h is explicitly added to NO_H_FILES in src/sysc/utils/files.am. The behavioural difference between the Automake and CMake-based build flow is probably unintentional. I have reported the issue to the LWG for investigation.
  22. 1 point


    You are defining a thread in ahb_master and a thread in dummy_master where both have the same name (tick) but a different C++ signature (ahb_master::tick and dummy_master::tick). Actually defining the tick thread in ahb_master doesnt make any sense, moreover since it doesn't do anything it will be declared immediately after simulation start. BR
  23. 1 point
    Since you are talking about timing I would stick to a more AT like modeling style using the non-blocking transport functions. In this case you should use a memory manager (see section 14.5 of the IEEE standard). For this you need to implement the tlm::tlm_mm_interface (there a few implementations out there, you may google them). The mechanism works similar to a C++ shared pointer. The initiator always pulls a new transaction from the memeory manager and sends via its socket. Each component dealing with the transaction calls acquire() on the payload and release() once it is finished with it. Upon the last release() call the transaction is automatically returned to the memory manager and can be reused. HTH
  24. 1 point
    Fix published in https://github.com/accellera-official/systemc/commit/5a94360d. Thanks for the report! Greetings from Duisburg, Philipp
  25. 1 point

    sc_fifo.read() does not work

    You are not writing to output2 of fork, hence printer input fifo is not filled. For debugging use num_available() to get the number of available items in the fifo. "value = input.read()" is not breaking out of the loop, here read() is a blocking call, as fifo is empty it kept blocking the thread. As there are no other pending events or waits simulation stopped naturally. Ram
  26. 1 point
    I have to correct my statements. It works they way I described it, I unintentionally looked at the wrong trace signals...
  27. 1 point
    I see at least 1 bug in code sample: for (auto val : var.read()) here you create copies of vector elements on a stack of your function. And then pass references to them into SystemC kernel. So those will be dangling references one you return from your sc_trace overload. Change to: for (auto & val : var.read())
  28. 1 point
    Looks like XY problem to me. If you need pointer to event, use pointer.
  29. 1 point
    In general avoid using multiple inheritance for aggregation. It is possible, but has many drawbacks and no major benefits. Now I regret that I've written original post, but at that time I had no enough experience myself. Now, if we read any object oriented design book, we will learn that inheritance usually means "is-a" relation ship, and "has-a" relation ship is expressed by composition. Translating into HW modeling : what we want to express is that "some_module has port bundles", and not "some_module is port bundles". We can still use single inheritance in limited cases, for example if all modules in design have clock and reset, we can have a common base class like class clocked_module : public sc_module Back to your example. I recommend to convert your port bundles into modules: struct if_inputs : sc_module { sc_inout<sc_uint<4>> SC_NAMED(R_OP_MODE); sc_inout<sc_uint<8>> SC_NAMED(R_PRESET_MANUAL); if_inputs(sc_module_name){} }; struct if_outputs : sc_module { sc_inout<sc_uint<2>> SC_NAMED(T_BIT); sc_inout<sc_uint<4>> SC_NAMED(T_OP_MODE); sc_inout<sc_uint<8>> SC_NAMED(T_PRESET_MANUAL); if_outputs(sc_module_name){} }; And now you can aggregate any number of them inside monitor. Even have a vector of port bundles: class monitor : public sc_module { public: if_inputs SC_NAMED(sim_inputs); if_outputs SC_NAMED(sim_outputs); if_inputs SC_NAMED(stub_inputs); if_outputs SC_NAMED(stub_outputs); sc_vector<if_inputs> SC_NAMED(inputs_vector, 3); monitor(sc_module_name name_); private : // implementation details };
  30. 1 point
    You have multiple instances of the "bundles" in your monitor class: inherited directly as additional members in the nested classes sim and stub To avoid the name clashes, you can make sim and stub modules themselves via: struct sim : sc_module , if_inputs, if_outputs { SC_CTOR(sim) {} } sim { "sim" };
  31. 1 point
    Roman Popov

    sequence processing

    SystemC standard does not guarantee any order of process evaluation within a single delta cycle. So in first example both 2,4 and 4,2 will be correct.
  32. 1 point
    e.notify(); // immediate notification is executed "immediately" - Thread2 added to set of runnable processes e.notify(3,SC_NS); // e added to kernel event queue, it will be triggered in 3 ns e.notify(3,SC_NS); // e added to kernel event queue to be triggered in 3 ns e.notify(); // previous notification canceled, and instead event is notified immediately, Thread2 added to set of runnable processes
  33. 1 point
    Setting library path != Linking library. Also add -l systemc to g++ options.
  34. 1 point

    Bus width of socket

    Again, in your case you model a burst read which means in reality data gets transfered in several beats (32 in your case). Since your model does not deal with timing you wont notice that, all you see is that your data gets transfered. Look, TLM2.0 implements a generic bus protocol. Most of the real-world protocols have a so called burst transfer (e.g. checkout the AMBA specs). So the way to model this in an abstract way is to have a bust with and the amount of bytes being transfered in on bus transaction not in one beat. This way it is also possible to describe byte and half-word transfers. HTH
  35. 1 point

    Generic pointer to sc_out<T>

    Well, this topic is not easy to solve. In C++ each template instantiation (like sc_in<bool>) is a separate class in the class hierachy. The common base class is sc_port_base and this is in this context more or less useless. Actually there I see 2 options: You store a sc_port_base pointer in your map and upon each write you check for the typeid of the specific template instance and down-cast it using dynamic_cast. This is inflexible and needs additional coding if you want to use new type. You store a writer function in your map which knows how to translate a generic value (like int or double) to the particular value. This might by a lambda which captures the port reference and therefore 'knows' hwo to write to this port. But in this case you would loose type safety as you have to store a generic function unless you can use std::variant. So your map would have to be declared as typedef std::map<std::string, std::function<void(unsigned)> Map0 or (C++17): typedef std::map<std::string, std::function<void(std::variant<bool, sc_dt::sc_uint<2>>> Map0 I personally would go for option 2 as it is simpler and more flexible... HTH
  36. 1 point

    bind multi ports to other port.

    Another option would be to use a resolved signal and connect all output ports to it. But this is already about techincal implementation options. The question to me is: what would you like to model? Is this the right way to model the intend? Best regards
  37. 1 point
    You have controversial requirements: a) put stored value when enable == 1 , which sounds like a dff with output_enable b) put input to output when enable == 1, which sounds more like a latch Anyway, in both cases you will need to make process sensitive to enable signal. And usually such low-level logic is modeled with SC_METHODs. In SystemC context "register" usually means some memory-mapped CSR on TLM bus 🙂
  38. 1 point
    What do you mean exactly by "modeling a register"? If you are working on synthesizable code (i.e. using Mentor/Cadence HLS tools), then it is not possible to have 0-delay communication between threads in synthesizable code, as you wanted in original post. At least it was not possible last time I've used these tools. If you are working on some non-synthesizable high-level model, then you can model "register" any way you like, you don't even have to use sc_signal<> for that purpose.
  39. 1 point
    You would want to use an sc_event_and_list. See IEEE1666 section 5.8. As its intended use is with next_trigger() and wait() you would need to move the sensitivity into your method. So the constructor part becomes SC_METHOD(func2); and func2 should something like (snippet of your module): sc_core::sc_event_and_list ev_list; void end_of_elaboration(){ ev_list |= clk.posedge_event(); ev_list |= nreset; } void func2(){ next_trigger(ev_list); // your code here ... }
  40. 1 point
    You should have a top level. If you don’t, create one and instantiate everything there. Set the global quantum in your top level module st end_of_elaboration and reset local quantum’s at start_of_simulation. Set a default and allow for override. You can obtain the override value to use at run time from any of: - command-line argument using sc_argv() - read a file or database if it exists - Enviroment variable set prior to invocation - user input prompt
  41. 1 point
    Hmm, not sure if I understand you correctly. Your C++ code has an entry function, right? If you just call this entry function from a SC_THREAD it runs in a thread context and can call wait to let other parts of the simulation continue. The other option you have is to run your C++ code in a second (OS) thread, e.g. a std::thread. This allows to use the usual syncronization primitives of the OS like mutexes and alike. BR
  42. 1 point

    UVM Library Test Suite and Git Repository

    The github repositories are the actively developed code for Accellera’s reference implementation (sourceforge was made read-only when github was spun up). That being said, github stores the active development for the reference implementation, not for the standard itself. The class reference (ie. The “Standard”), as well as the Accellera Reference Implementation are officially published on accellera.org: The UVM 1.2 Standard: http://accellera.org/images/downloads/standards/uvm/UVM_Class_Reference_Manual_1.2.pdf The UVM 1.2 Reference Implementation: http://accellera.org/images/downloads/standards/uvm/uvm-1.2.tar.gz
  43. 1 point

    UVM Library Test Suite and Git Repository

    @David Black I did stumble upon an accellera/uvm repository on GitHub. Seems to be what I was looking for although it has been dead since UVM 1.2. Why have it there and not use that platform?
  44. 1 point
    In LT with Temporal Delay, the initiators maintain a local variable (sometimes with the aid of the Quantum Keeper) that represents time. Although time is not as important, we don't want to throw it completely away. So each initiator keeps a variable that represents how far ahead of the simulator's notion of time it has progressed. You can represent execution of instructions by simply adding a time value to that variable. Targets want to know the current simulated (not simulator) time so they can respond appropriately. For example, a timer definitely needs a notion of time in order to timeout. So initiators pass their local notion of the "current time" to the target. If a target wants to represent the notion of a time change, it can add to that delay, which will be reflected in the initiator since the b_transport call passes it by reference. LT models don't completely avoid sc_core::wait(), but they do try to minimize it because context switches affect performance. Adding to a local variable doesn't have as much of a hit.
  45. 1 point
    +1 I found https://accellera.mantishub.io/my_view_page.php, but that doesn't seem to list any UVM bug reports?
  46. 1 point
    David Black

    serial transmission

    [I assume that when you say "TLM", you mean SystemC TLM 2.0.] You need to understand the difference between modeling styles. TLM is precisely about not modeling at the level of RTL. The SystemC TLM 2.0 also has two different modeling styles: Loosely Timed (LT) and Approximately Timed (AT). Let's look at each using a specific case. Suppose you are modeling two UARTs operating at 9600 baud (bits per second) with 8-bits, no parity, and 1 stop bit to transfer the message "Hello World\n". This configuration results in 960 characters per second (1.042 ms/char), which is quite slow, so probably you would be transmitting/receiving characters slowly enough that most systems would either process them one at a time or provide a FIFO (e.g. 16 bytes) and only process empty/full events. There is one more question to answer though. Consider the diagram below. The connections between sender to UART and UART to receiver are clearly memory mapped for most systems. So there is no question of modeling. The connection UART to UART is not memory mapped, which means you need to create a custom protocol. Furthermore, for TLM, it actually requires to connections since communication can be invoked bi-directionally (for a full UART). You need to decide what is important to model. For a high level model and efficiency, I would either transfer as much data as I could. It might even make sense to use TLM 1.0 rather than TLM 2.0. Do you have the requirement to inject errors? For my example, you would configure the transmitter, and then transfer a burst of 12 characters into the transmit FIFO on one end of the transfer and generate an empty FIFO interrupt at 12.5 ms later. The receiver side would be similar. What about the UART/UART transaction? An efficient approach might be as follows: Create a required extension that carries the transmit configuration information (baud rate, bits, parity, etc.) Use TLM_WRITE_COMMAND because all transactions over this socket pair are initiated from the sender. The second pair in the opposite direction would do the same thing. Check and insist that the address always be 0 and the streaming width is 1. Byte enables would be illegal. Check that the configuration matches before accepting data. Place all received data into an unbounded queue and then indicate the size allowed by the hardware model. Send interrupts using the sc_signal when the received queue goes non-empty. Consider the error situation when the timing indicates characters would be lost due to FIFO full and timing of characters. You will have to decide how to deal with interrupts received in your thread process. Notice that I do not model at the bit level. If you wish to add bit-level error injection, then inject errors at the point of transmission.
  47. 1 point
    I am doing systemic & verilog co-simulation using cadence irun tool. When I am using non parameterize constructor and then using NCSC_MODULE_EXPORT it is working fine. But if I use parameterized constructor, then same NCSC_MODULE_EXPORT syntax is not working. Is the NCSC_MODULE_EXPORT different for parameterized constructor?
  48. 1 point
    While traversing, you should have realised already, that all ports (and the other SystemC objects) are derived from sc_object. But even more specifically, you can use a pointer to sc_port_base, the non-templated base class of all ports. That said, the port_wrapper you've shown won't work as is. You'd need to do proper type erasure. But even with that, you still need to instantiate the correctly templated ports/channels within your testbench. The step from a configuration file, i.e. some runtime data, to a (statically typed) C++ object then requires some kind of factory. hth, Philipp
  49. 1 point

    user defined data type signal assignment

    How do you know the assignment is not working? When are you printing out the assigned value? Remember that you must wait at least a delta for a primitive channel to update. There's more about user defined types and sc_signal here http://www.doulos.com/knowhow/systemc/faq/#q1 regards Alan
  50. 1 point


    Welcome to the Accellera Systems Initiative forums. Please register to start new topics or reply to existing topics. We have resently migrated our UVM forums from UVMWorld to this site. If you were registered on the previous UVM forum site, you should be able to log into the forums using your username and password from the UVMWorld forums. If you had an account on both the UVMWorld forums and the Accellera forums and these accounts used the same email address, then log in with the username and password of the forums.accellera.org account, not your UVMWorld account. If you do not remember your password, you may reset it. If you have any questions about using the forums, click the Help button at the bottom of any forum page. If you need any help with your account and you are logged into the site, click the Messenger icon (a letter) in the upper right of your screen, click Compose New, enter “admin” in the Recipient’s Name field, compose your message, and then click Send. You may also send an email to admin@lists.accellera.org. Thank you, Accellera Systems Initiative
  • Create New...