Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'scoreboard'.

  • 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 (IEEE 1800.2) - Methodology and BCL Forum
    • UVM SystemVerilog Discussions
    • UVM Simulator Specific Issues
    • UVM Commercial Announcements
    • UVM (Pre-IEEE) Methodology and BCL Forum
  • Portable Stimulus
    • Portable Stimulus Discussion
    • Portable Stimulus 2.0 Public Review Feedback
  • 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 4 results

  1. Hi, The purpose of this discussion is to understand different possibilities by which the simulation performance, memory usage can be increased. Scoreboard as we understand needs the data/packets/frames etc to be stored/buffered to do a comparison with the actual data out. This works out fine when we have small sized array ranging from few bytes to few thousands of bytes.. However imagine, if we have 100 thousands of bytes and above and there is a need to store them and lets say multiple of such lanes/flows , then this would take a hit on the simulation performance. And this gets
  2. Hi, I have a interface monitor where i am capturing data from the interface. I need to pass valid data captured from the interface to the scoreboard for comparison. But the behaviour of interface signals and the way they are asserted depends on the register configuration. Now this config info is not known to the interface or the interface monitor. So while implementing the monitor, should i define two monitors 1) interface monitor which just samples all the data from the bus. 2) process data got in 1) furthur depending on the register config & then pass it on the scoreboard fo
  3. Below I define a uvm_scoreboard. Why will this not compile when I remove the (3) lines THIS AND THAT? Should it? `uvm_analysis_imp_decl(_rcvd_pkt) //THIS class dpx_rr_scoreboard extends uvm_scoreboard; `uvm_component_utils(dpx_rr_scoreboard) virtual function void write_rcvd_pkt(input some_trans t); //AND THAT endfunction : write_rcvd_pkt //AND THAT endclass : dpx_rr_scoreboard I am using irun 12.X and get the following error when I remove the aforementioned lines: class dpx_rr_scoreboard extends uvm_scoreboard;
  4. I am using uvm_pw_scoreboard package available on accelera Contributions.I have following queries about it . 1. Why does this package uses uvm_analysis_export and analysis_fifo implementation instead of uvm_analysis_imp in pw_checker_predictor as well as pw_scoreboard. 2. I want to pass unique id to each transaction, to do this i have implemented as below: my_local_predictor.sv file(not extended from pw_checker_predictor) uvm_analysis_port #(item) predict_port; predict_port = new ("predict_port",this); item.set_transaction_item(unique_id); $display("Predictor unique_id =%d",uni
×
×
  • Create New...