Jump to content

UVM Library Test Suite and Git Repository

Recommended Posts

Thanks David. It sounds like no such tests are available. Open source projects in general are not always good at providing their test suites but I find it a bit odd that on open source library for verification doesn't provide the test suites showing how the library itself is verified. It would be easier for people to suggest improvements if they can verify whether or not such a modification breaks something else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • 3 months later...
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:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

After that:

I agree with @sas73. We need to open source UVM library using GitHub or even better GitLab with Issue Tracker, proper CI/CD setup and unit testing. Accellera should strongly consider that.

On 1/18/2019 at 10:03 AM, David Black said:

The UVM proof of concept library is carefully managed by Accellera as part of the standard's development. I cannot answer the question about test suites.

After spending some time for internal UVM source code review... Now I have many doubts about quality and architecture design decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

@sas73 and @tymonx - Feel free to contact Accellera itself and try to argue your case, but the Accellera is a membership based standards organization and not subject to the whims of the general public. Large electronics and EDA companies depend on their experts who are assigned to work on those standards, and many significant tools and designs are based on their work. If your employer feels strongly about this topic, perhaps they will consider joining the Accellera organization in order to contribute to the discussions. Standards discussions are often long and drawn out with many inputs. Membership at the contributor level is not free because they want serious contributors and because the organization has funding needs to promote the standards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

@David Black That "general public" is the users of UVM and among them are many experts that are not members of Accellera and will never be. Expert users that are willing to spend their own free time on providing feedback are certainly serious about that. I can see that only paying members have the right to change the code but why a fee for looking and commenting on the code that will be open eventually anyway? I'm assuming that it's open for people to read and react to but wouldn't it be better to get that feedback before any mistakes are released? Especially with the long release cycles.

The whole world depends on open source successfully developed in the open and the early feedback from the user community is considered as something valuable. I'm hoping that Accellera would see the same value. Other standards such as the VHDL standard is moving in that direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...