Synopsys's VMM and Mentor's AVM

Discussion in 'VHDL' started by Davy, Oct 16, 2006.

  1. Davy

    Davy Guest

    Hi all,

    I want to use SystemVerilog to construct next generation of my
    testbench.

    And I found Synopsys provide VMM while Mentor provide AVM. Anyone can
    give some comment on these two methodology? Or are they similar?

    I don't know if Synopsys's VMM is open document and open source code.

    The AVM cookbook/source code, you can download a free copy from:
    http://www.mentor.com/products/fv/_3b715c/cb_dll.cfm

    Best regards,
    Davy
    Davy, Oct 16, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Davy

    EdA Guest

    Davy wrote:
    > Hi all,
    >
    > I want to use SystemVerilog to construct next generation of my
    > testbench.
    >
    > And I found Synopsys provide VMM while Mentor provide AVM. Anyone can
    > give some comment on these two methodology? Or are they similar?
    >
    > I don't know if Synopsys's VMM is open document and open source code.
    >
    > The AVM cookbook/source code, you can download a free copy from:
    > http://www.mentor.com/products/fv/_3b715c/cb_dll.cfm
    >
    > Best regards,
    > Davy


    Davy, sorry for the non-answer, but you may get better results with
    that question at
    http://www.verificationguild.com/

    /Ed
    EdA, Oct 16, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Davy wrote:

    > Hi all,
    >
    > I want to use SystemVerilog to construct next generation of my
    > testbench.
    >
    > And I found Synopsys provide VMM while Mentor provide AVM. Anyone
    > can give some comment on these two methodology? Or are they similar?


    A comparison of AVM and VMM in Verification Horizons:
    http://lyris.mentor-info.com/t/5001/4363723/7325/1846/
    PDF version:
    http://lyris.mentor-info.com/t/5001/4363723/7330/1851/

    Four articles in the EETIMES on the SystemVerilog reference
    verification methodology:
    http://www.eetimes.com/news/design/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=183702807
    http://www.eetimes.com/news/design/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=187001913
    http://www.eetimes.com/news/design/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=188703275
    http://www.eetimes.com/news/design/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=192501500

    The first is by Mentor, the second by Synopsys (IIRC). Both of course
    with their own biases.

    > I don't know if Synopsys's VMM is open document and open source
    > code.


    As far as I know the VMM book is not an open document:
    http://www.vmm-sv.com/

    The AVM cookbook clearly is.

    The same goes for VMM and AVM itself. AVM is opensource, VMM source is
    heavily licensed (word choice from Verification Horizons).

    --
    Paul.
    Paul Uiterlinden, Oct 16, 2006
    #3
  4. Davy

    Davy Guest

    Hi Paul,

    Thanks a lot!
    I also want to know does Cadence provide such verification methodology
    like Synopsys and Mentor.

    And what's Synopsys (IIRC)'s IIRC mean?

    Best regards,
    Davy


    Paul Uiterlinden wrote:
    > Davy wrote:
    >
    > > Hi all,
    > >
    > > I want to use SystemVerilog to construct next generation of my
    > > testbench.
    > >
    > > And I found Synopsys provide VMM while Mentor provide AVM. Anyone
    > > can give some comment on these two methodology? Or are they similar?

    >
    > A comparison of AVM and VMM in Verification Horizons:
    > http://lyris.mentor-info.com/t/5001/4363723/7325/1846/
    > PDF version:
    > http://lyris.mentor-info.com/t/5001/4363723/7330/1851/
    >
    > Four articles in the EETIMES on the SystemVerilog reference
    > verification methodology:
    > http://www.eetimes.com/news/design/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=183702807
    > http://www.eetimes.com/news/design/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=187001913
    > http://www.eetimes.com/news/design/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=188703275
    > http://www.eetimes.com/news/design/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=192501500
    >
    > The first is by Mentor, the second by Synopsys (IIRC). Both of course
    > with their own biases.
    >
    > > I don't know if Synopsys's VMM is open document and open source
    > > code.

    >
    > As far as I know the VMM book is not an open document:
    > http://www.vmm-sv.com/
    >
    > The AVM cookbook clearly is.
    >
    > The same goes for VMM and AVM itself. AVM is opensource, VMM source is
    > heavily licensed (word choice from Verification Horizons).
    >
    > --
    > Paul.
    Davy, Oct 17, 2006
    #4
  5. Davy

    Ajeetha Guest

    Hi,


    Paul Uiterlinden wrote:
    > Davy wrote:
    >
    > > Hi all,
    > > I don't know if Synopsys's VMM is open document and open source
    > > code.

    >
    > As far as I know the VMM book is not an open document:
    > http://www.vmm-sv.com/
    >


    I don't understand this - perhaps you are mixing "open" with "free"?
    VMM is a published book so why is it not open? Infact we wrote a book
    on "pragmatic approach to VMM adoption" based on that book. (See
    www.systemverilog.us if interested). BTW, VMM also ships under
    $VCS_HOME/doc.

    > The AVM cookbook clearly is.
    >
    > The same goes for VMM and AVM itself. AVM is opensource, VMM source is
    > heavily licensed (word choice from Verification Horizons).
    >


    Quoting from:

    http://www.synopsys.com/news/announce/press2005/snps_sourcode_licsvpr.html

    SNPS gives source code to VCS users if they request for the same.

    Now having said all this, given the status of SV implementation by
    major eda vendors, neither VMM nor AVM is truly "portable" as of today
    - tools support different subsets just to fit into their individual
    methodology, perhaps the tool development was driven by the methodology
    team. So when 100% SV implementation is available across vendors, users
    may not have an issue of AVM vs. VMM as both will work in any
    simulator.

    Now, I'm teaching myself AVM and am finding it quite similar to VMM.
    Sure VMM has much more stuff, also maturity (given their RVM legacy),
    AVM has some "new" concepts such as analysis ports etc. I asked Mentor
    if I can openly debate on AVM, no reply yet...

    Regards
    Ajeetha, CVC
    www.noveldv.com

    > --
    > Paul.
    Ajeetha, Oct 17, 2006
    #5
  6. Davy wrote:

    > Hi Paul,
    >
    > Thanks a lot!
    > I also want to know does Cadence provide such verification
    > methodology like Synopsys and Mentor.


    Not that I know of. I haven't come across it, but I haven't actively
    been searching for it.

    > And what's Synopsys (IIRC)'s IIRC mean?


    IIRC is just an abbreviation for "If I remember correctly". Sorry for
    the confusion.

    --
    Paul.
    Paul Uiterlinden, Oct 17, 2006
    #6
  7. Ajeetha wrote:

    > Hi,
    >
    >
    > Paul Uiterlinden wrote:
    >> Davy wrote:
    >>
    >> > Hi all,
    >> > I don't know if Synopsys's VMM is open document and open source
    >> > code.

    >>
    >> As far as I know the VMM book is not an open document:
    >> http://www.vmm-sv.com/
    >>

    >
    > I don't understand this - perhaps you are mixing "open" with
    > "free"?


    Yes, I am. What I meant it is not freely down-loadable.

    > VMM is a published book so why is it not open? Infact we wrote a
    > book on "pragmatic approach to VMM adoption" based on that book.
    > (See www.systemverilog.us if interested). BTW, VMM also ships under
    > $VCS_HOME/doc.
    >
    >> The AVM cookbook clearly is.
    >>
    >> The same goes for VMM and AVM itself. AVM is opensource, VMM source
    >> is heavily licensed (word choice from Verification Horizons).
    >>

    >
    > Quoting from:
    >
    >

    http://www.synopsys.com/news/announce/press2005/snps_sourcode_licsvpr.html
    >
    > SNPS gives source code to VCS users if they request for the same.


    "VCS customers may license the source code at no additional cost to
    gain insight into the implementation details."

    So that's for VCS users. I'm not a VCS user, so I do not have access
    to the source code. In that way it _is_ licensed. The AVM source is
    not.

    > Now having said all this, given the status of SV implementation by
    > major eda vendors, neither VMM nor AVM is truly "portable" as of
    > today - tools support different subsets just to fit into their
    > individual methodology, perhaps the tool development was driven by
    > the methodology team. So when 100% SV implementation is available
    > across vendors, users may not have an issue of AVM vs. VMM as both
    > will work in any simulator.
    >
    > Now, I'm teaching myself AVM and am finding it quite similar to VMM.
    > Sure VMM has much more stuff, also maturity (given their RVM
    > legacy), AVM has some "new" concepts such as analysis ports etc.


    I cannot comment on this. I haven't used or really studied neither of
    them. I did find this quote from Verification Horizons quite potent:

    "(...) I mention this story because it is similar to the thought
    process that many of you may be going through in trying to decide how
    to adopt a new verification methodology. You have a similar choice to
    make - should you go with the AVM or take a look at the VMM? In my
    minivan story, the VMM is the used car since it?s really based on old
    technology, having simply been ported from OpenVera® to
    SystemVerilog. The AVM is the new topof-the-line car that gives you
    all of the latest features and the power and flexibility that you
    need. Plus your tool and legacy investments are protected because it
    is based on an open standard. Which would you rather use to carry
    your precious cargo?"

    Granted, this is by Mentor Graphics, so perhaps should be taken with a
    grain of salt. I really do not have the knowledge to put a value on
    quotes likes this. Perhaps you would like to comment on this.

    > I asked Mentor if I can openly debate on AVM, no reply yet...


    Call me naive, but I do not see why such a debate should not be
    possible. It's a free world, "free" as in "free speech", not as in
    "free bear".

    --
    Paul.
    www.aimcom.nl
    Paul Uiterlinden, Oct 17, 2006
    #7
  8. Davy

    Davy Guest

    Ajeetha wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    >
    > Paul Uiterlinden wrote:
    > > Davy wrote:
    > >
    > > > Hi all,
    > > > I don't know if Synopsys's VMM is open document and open source
    > > > code.

    > >
    > > As far as I know the VMM book is not an open document:
    > > http://www.vmm-sv.com/
    > >

    >
    > I don't understand this - perhaps you are mixing "open" with "free"?
    > VMM is a published book so why is it not open? Infact we wrote a book
    > on "pragmatic approach to VMM adoption" based on that book. (See
    > www.systemverilog.us if interested). BTW, VMM also ships under
    > $VCS_HOME/doc.
    >
    > > The AVM cookbook clearly is.
    > >
    > > The same goes for VMM and AVM itself. AVM is opensource, VMM source is
    > > heavily licensed (word choice from Verification Horizons).
    > >

    >
    > Quoting from:
    >
    > http://www.synopsys.com/news/announce/press2005/snps_sourcode_licsvpr.html
    >
    > SNPS gives source code to VCS users if they request for the same.
    >
    > Now having said all this, given the status of SV implementation by
    > major eda vendors, neither VMM nor AVM is truly "portable" as of today
    > - tools support different subsets just to fit into their individual
    > methodology, perhaps the tool development was driven by the methodology
    > team. So when 100% SV implementation is available across vendors, users
    > may not have an issue of AVM vs. VMM as both will work in any
    > simulator.
    >
    > Now, I'm teaching myself AVM and am finding it quite similar to VMM.
    > Sure VMM has much more stuff, also maturity (given their RVM legacy),
    > AVM has some "new" concepts such as analysis ports etc. I asked Mentor
    > if I can openly debate on AVM, no reply yet...

    [snip]

    Hi Ajeetha,

    Thanks for the explanation.
    I think a lot of people will be interested in your openly comment on
    both VMM and AVM without biased opinion.
    For AVM, it use Apache licence. Is this licence forbid openly debate :)

    Best regards,
    Davy

    >
    > Regards
    > Ajeetha, CVC
    > www.noveldv.com
    >
    > > --
    > > Paul.
    Davy, Oct 18, 2006
    #8
  9. Davy

    Ajeetha Guest

    Hi Davy,
    > Hi Ajeetha,
    >
    > Thanks for the explanation.
    > I think a lot of people will be interested in your openly comment on
    > both VMM and AVM


    That's one of the reasons for me to hold back :) As I have to be
    100% correct else Mentor and/or SNPS folks will start pin pointing
    errors with my analysis. I would take some more time, but from quick
    analysis so far, both are very similar in concepts and I am even
    considering an "adaptor" for AVM users to VMM and vice versa - but all
    in thoughts, depends on market.



    > For AVM, it use Apache licence. Is this licence forbid openly debate :)
    >


    Honestly speaking I have NOT read through the license in full and am
    not a lawyer either. Hence I would be glad if someone clearly says "yes
    we can debate on it". Being an independent consutlant I want to be
    friendly to all vendors.

    Regards
    Ajeetha, CVC
    www.noveldv.com
    Ajeetha, Oct 18, 2006
    #9
  10. Davy

    Davy Guest

    Ajeetha wrote:
    > Hi Davy,
    > > Hi Ajeetha,
    > >
    > > Thanks for the explanation.
    > > I think a lot of people will be interested in your openly comment on
    > > both VMM and AVM

    >
    > That's one of the reasons for me to hold back :) As I have to be
    > 100% correct else Mentor and/or SNPS folks will start pin pointing
    > errors with my analysis. I would take some more time, but from quick
    > analysis so far, both are very similar in concepts and I am even
    > considering an "adaptor" for AVM users to VMM and vice versa - but all
    > in thoughts, depends on market.
    >
    >
    >
    > > For AVM, it use Apache licence. Is this licence forbid openly debate :)
    > >

    >
    > Honestly speaking I have NOT read through the license in full and am
    > not a lawyer either. Hence I would be glad if someone clearly says "yes
    > we can debate on it". Being an independent consutlant I want to be
    > friendly to all vendors.

    [snip]
    Hi Ajeetha,

    I agree with you. And I have sent a mail to apache.org (Apache License
    V2 owner) to ask the problem. I will give out the result when got a
    replay.

    Best regards,
    Davy

    >
    > Regards
    > Ajeetha, CVC
    > www.noveldv.com
    Davy, Oct 18, 2006
    #10
  11. Davy

    Guest


    > >
    > > Honestly speaking I have NOT read through the license in full and am
    > > not a lawyer either. Hence I would be glad if someone clearly says "yes
    > > we can debate on it". Being an independent consutlant I want to be
    > > friendly to all vendors.

    > [snip]


    Mentor Graphics encourages open discussion of anything we have
    published at www.mentor.com/go/cookbook. This is why we published it in
    that form.

    Any code or pseudo code that uses the AVM is fine. Questions refering
    to specific items in the documentation are fine.

    If you're going to post the contents of the library itself you already
    have permission under the license to do so provided you also copy the
    header at the top of the file which includes the copyright notice -
    although I would have thought this would be unecessary most of the
    time.

    Adam.

    Adam Rose
    Verification Technologist
    Mentor Graphics.
    , Oct 18, 2006
    #11
  12. Davy

    googler Guest

    googler, Oct 23, 2006
    #12
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    922
    nishit
    Aug 9, 2006
  2. Amal
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    597
  3. knight

    Questa AVM

    knight, Dec 13, 2007, in forum: VHDL
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    454
    knight
    Dec 13, 2007
  4. knight

    Questa AVM

    knight, Dec 13, 2007, in forum: VHDL
    Replies:
    47
    Views:
    2,372
  5. nirman longjam
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    261
    Miki Tebeka
    Nov 24, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page