Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by blutsvente

  1. Hi Tom, thanks for the reply, a valid argument. Looking ahead, there will be a demand for re-usable system-level IP that must be tool/vendor independent. This will most certainly trigger the discussion about the dual-input-language decision again... /Thorsten.
  2. Late to the game, but I think it is a bad compromise to choose two different PSS input languages. A DSL is an obvious choice, C++ is unsuitable in my opinion. This is nicely demonstrated by examples 134 vs. 135. There is also historic evidence for this in the now forgotten SystemC-for-verification standard. I advise to reconsider this decision, keeping in mind that a generation of verification engineers will have to bear with its consequences. Thorsten Dworzak, Verification Engineer.
  • Create New...