Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'lrm'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Accellera Systems Initiative
    • Information
    • Announcements
    • In the News
  • SystemC
    • SystemC Language
    • SystemC AMS (Analog/Mixed-Signal)
    • SystemC TLM (Transaction-level Modeling)
    • SystemC Verification (UVM-SystemC, SCV)
    • SystemC CCI (Configuration, Control & Inspection)
    • SystemC Datatypes
  • UVM (Universal Verification Methodology)
    • UVM 2017 - Methodology and BCL Forum
    • UVM SystemVerilog Discussions
    • UVM Simulator Specific Issues
    • UVM Commercial Announcements
    • UVM (Pre-IEEE) Methodology and BCL Forum
    • UVM 1.2 Public Review
  • Portable Stimulus
    • Portable Stimulus 1.0
    • Portable Stimulus Pre-Release Discussion
  • IP Security
    • IP Security Assurance Whitepaper Discussion
  • IP-XACT
    • IP-XACT Discussion
  • IEEE 1735/IP Encryption
    • IEEE 1735/IP Encryption Discussion
  • Commercial Announcements
    • Announcements

Categories

  • SystemC
  • UVM
  • UCIS
  • IEEE 1735/IP Encryption

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests


Biography


Location


Interests


Occupation


Company

Found 5 results

  1. I recently encountered SVA code which results in different results on different simulators. I've shrunk it to a simple example here. I believe this code should cause an error, but it does not on all tools. Can someone comment on how the 2017 LRM should be interpreted (and perhaps on the code). (I sense someone will comment on the driving signals in the code.) module top; bit clk; logic sig1; logic disable_assert; always begin #5 clk=0; #5 clk=1; end initial begin disable_assert=1'b1; sig1 =1'b0; $display("Hello Wor
  2. As used in the SystemVerilog LRM, 1800.1-2017.pdf, what is the difference between these two terms? The first seems well defined. The second, not so much. * time slot * time step Cliff Cummings/Sunburst Design wrote the following in CummingsSNUG2006Boston_SystemVerilog_Events.pdf: If that is correct, then it seems the term 'time step' has returned.
  3. Hi. To my impression, the explanation of the callbacks could be more clear about multiple callbacks for one stage. I could not find an explicit statement that is should be possible to register more thean one callback to a single stage. It is mentioned that 'callbacks are invoked in order of registration' which implies having more than one. Mentioning it explicitly could avoid misunderstandings. Greetings Ralph
  4. Hi. While reading through the LRM in the CCI review release, I observed some typos and minor issues. They might be known already, but I wanted to mention them here for completeness. 1. missing '_' in listings The underscore character is not printed in some of the names of types and methods in some listings, e.g. in Section 5.4.1 class cci_originator, 5.4.2 cci_param_if, ... 2. missing ';' in listing in Section 5.4.2.1 No semicolon at end of second line in the get_cci_value listing 3. NULL vs. nullptr Since C++11 is presumed as minimum supported standar
  5. Hi. I think that the explanation of setting values with password could be improved. void cci_param_if::set_cci_value(const cci_value &, const void* pwd, const cci_originator& orig); There are some statements saying that 'Writes to a locked parameter are rejected'. But with the pwd overload of set_cci_value, it is possible to write to a locked parameter without being rejected. The LRM should be more clear about this: Will the param be unlocked temporarily or not? If not, user needs to be aware that write callbacks can occur and latest originator can change even in
×
×
  • Create New...