which commercial HDL-Simulator for FPGA?

Discussion in 'VHDL' started by SynopsysFPGAexpress, Jun 19, 2008.

  1. As commodity PC hardware and prouctivity applications deline in price, EDA
    tools are as (relatively) expensive as ever, necessitating yet another
    discussion of "Which simulator is right for me?"

    The contendors are ...

    1) Aldec Active-HDL
    + great design-flow assistants (state-diagram, block-diagram,
    waveform-diagram editing, export to PDF)
    + possibly faster than Modelsim/PE?
    - no direct support in FPGA design-suites (Webpack/Quartus)
    - Windoze only (can WINE 1.0 run it?)
    - Systemverilog is almost but not quite usable ('package' not
    supported?!?)
    "less than $6000 for mixed-lang. VHDL+Verilog simulation"
    (Note, that configuration is the most basic, doesn't have
    SWIFT/Smartmodel)
    [first year pepetual-license, yearly maint. is additional 20%/year]

    2) Mentor Modelsim PE
    + currently more solid Systemverilog support than Active-HDL,
    (but limited to design-constructs, no assertions/coverage)
    + de-facto industry standard,
    direct integration into FPGA design-suites (Webpack/Quartus)
    + SWIFT/Smartmodel support (no extra cost if using mixed-HDL license)
    - I really don't like the integrated waveform viewer
    - Windoze only (can WINE 1.0 run it?)
    "less than $10,000 for mixed-lang. VHDL+Verilog simulation"
    [first year perpetual-license, yearly maint. is additional 20%/year]

    3) FPGA-vendor OEM solution (usually a crippled Modelsim/PE)
    + cheapest
    + Altera Modelsim officially supports Linux (Xilinx does not)
    + Xilinx Modelsim has same level of (design construct) Systemverilog
    support as Modelsim/PE, quite good actually
    - limited capacity, deliberately slower runtime performance
    - term-based only (no perpetual license for Xilinx/Altera?)
    - no mixed-HDL (VHDL+Verilog) -- deal-killer for me...
    "less than $1500 for 1-language, 1-year license"

    If I only had to do 'abstract' RTL-design (algorithm proof, no
    device-dependent instantiations...)

    *4) gHDL, Icarus Verilog
    + free, open-source VHDL, Verilog
    - emacs/gvim not included
    - no mixed-HDL (VHDL+Verilog) sim

    ..............

    Kidding aside, my real requirements:

    1) I foresee mixed-HDL as a *requirement* for any serious consulting job.
    (Xilinx and Altera are pretty good about providing 'HDL-neutral IP', but
    third-parties aren't.)

    2) ASIC sign-off is obviously not a concern -- who's going to compete with a
    professional turn-key bureau?

    3) Design-size (capacity) is an unknown. For front-end (RTL) simulation, I
    think even the OEM Modelsims are adequate. But for gate-level, that might
    push them over the limit. It's interesting that even a 'budget' <$500
    FPGA-board already has sufficient gate-capacity to overwhelm a
    single-designer...progress!

    3) validation/qualification with fpga vendor. I like Active-HDL's
    user-interface more than Modelsim, but I can't escape the fact that
    Modelsim/PE has wider industry endorsement. It's hard to argue with the
    management types who're more interested in checkboxes than the less
    tangibles (oh ... like ... employee productivity?)

    Finally, I note the irony of Modelsim/Altera and Modelsim/Xilinx editions.
    Altera Quartus-II supports Systemverilog synthesis, quite well, actually.
    But Altera's Modelsim is based on the aging 6.1g version, which is
    regrettably limited. Xilinx Webpack doesn't support Systemverilog, but
    their Modelsim/XE is based on the more recent 6.3c codebase. I find it
    useful for testbenching, though too many colleagues heckle me for my
    systemverilog "religion." (I believe in it, and so should they.)
     
    SynopsysFPGAexpress, Jun 19, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. SynopsysFPGAexpress wrote:
    > As commodity PC hardware and prouctivity applications deline in price, EDA
    > tools are as (relatively) expensive as ever, necessitating yet another
    > discussion of "Which simulator is right for me?"


    This reads like a thinly veiled marketing survey.

    If you actually are a designer,
    get a proto design ready,
    order evals of each simulator
    then try them and see for yourself.

    > Kidding aside, my real requirements:

    Which part were you kidding about?

    > 1) I foresee mixed-HDL as a *requirement* for any serious consulting job.
    > (Xilinx and Altera are pretty good about providing 'HDL-neutral IP', but
    > third-parties aren't.)


    The device vendors are only HDL-neutral because
    they are selling device netlists, not source code.
    Not a plus in my book.

    -- Mike Treseler
     
    Mike Treseler, Jun 19, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. SynopsysFPGAexpress

    Muzaffer Kal Guest

    On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:01:59 -0700, "SynopsysFPGAexpress"
    <> wrote:

    >As commodity PC hardware and prouctivity applications deline in price, EDA
    >tools are as (relatively) expensive as ever, necessitating yet another
    >discussion of "Which simulator is right for me?"
    >
    >The contendors are ...


    Don't forget http://fintronic.com/home.html and
    http://simucad.com/products/verilogSimulation/silos-x.html

    I personally like Finsim (from Fintronic) a lot. It's a compiled
    simulator and it's quite fast.
     
    Muzaffer Kal, Jun 19, 2008
    #3
  4. SynopsysFPGAexpress

    Guest

    On Jun 18, 11:38 pm, Muzaffer Kal <> wrote:
    > On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:01:59 -0700, "SynopsysFPGAexpress"
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > >As commodity PC hardware and prouctivity applications deline in price, EDA
    > >tools are as (relatively) expensive as ever, necessitating yet another
    > >discussion of "Which simulator is right for me?"

    >
    > >The contendors are ...

    >
    > Don't forgethttp://fintronic.com/home.htmlandhttp://simucad.com/products/verilogSimulation/silos-x.html
    >
    > I personally like Finsim (from Fintronic) a lot. It's a compiled
    > simulator and it's quite fast.


    I've been using Veritak, a low cost Veritak simulator. It has had
    some bugs, but the author
    is VERY quick to fix problems. A surprise - he is also VERY
    responsive to requests for
    new features or enhancements. I'm very pleased with his product.

    John Providenza
     
    , Jun 19, 2008
    #4
  5. SynopsysFPGAexpress wrote:
    > As commodity PC hardware and prouctivity applications deline in price, EDA
    > tools are as (relatively) expensive as ever, necessitating yet another
    > discussion of "Which simulator is right for me?"
    >
    > The contendors are ...

    ....
    >


    If you have Xilinx ISE 10.1, check out ISIM, which comes "free" with it.
    It's much improved and may meet your needs and in future releases
    should have better a better user interface. I don't think it currently
    supports SystemVerilog, (and you are correct in propagating your
    religion) but might soon. Modelsim is still the best, but you pay for a
    lot of things you don't really need, and the waveform viewer could be
    improved. That's where you spend 90% of your time during debugging so
    it should be a little easier to use.
    -Kevin
     
    Kevin Neilson, Jun 19, 2008
    #5
  6. SynopsysFPGAexpress

    Jason Zheng Guest

    On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:27:10 +0000 (UTC)
    (Joseph H Allen) wrote:

    > However with modelsim it looks like there is no way to do this.
    > Instead, when you add a signal to the viewer in the GUI, it re-runs
    > the entire simulation to get the new signal. Am I missing something
    > or is this really how it works? I can't believe that it would really
    > work this way.


    Invoke vsim with -do "log -r *; run -all; quit -f" and -wlf
    "mydump.wlf", and you'll get similar results (just in a different
    format). In my experience ncsim is faster than Modelsim, and of course
    it carries a higher price tag.

    Older versions of Modelsim also seems to stall after long simulations,
    wehreas ncsim never gave me any problems.

    --
    Faster, faster, you fool, you fool!
    -- Bill Cosby
     
    Jason Zheng, Jun 19, 2008
    #6
  7. On 18 juin, 21:01, "SynopsysFPGAexpress" <> wrote:
    > As commodity PC hardware and prouctivity applications deline in price, EDA
    > tools are as (relatively) expensive as ever, necessitating yet another
    > discussion of "Which simulator is right for me?"
    >
    > The contendors are ...
    >
    > 1) Aldec Active-HDL
    > + great design-flow assistants (state-diagram, block-diagram,
    > waveform-diagram editing, export to PDF)
    > + possibly faster than Modelsim/PE?
    > - no direct support in FPGA design-suites (Webpack/Quartus)
    > - Windoze only (can WINE 1.0 run it?)
    > - Systemverilog is almost but not quite usable ('package' not
    > supported?!?)
    > "less than $6000 for mixed-lang. VHDL+Verilog simulation"
    > (Note, that configuration is the most basic, doesn't have
    > SWIFT/Smartmodel)
    > [first year pepetual-license, yearly maint. is additional 20%/year]


    One vote for Active-HDL. I briefly used Modelsim before we bought
    Active-HDL and for me anyway, the Active-HDL interface is much better.
    It's true that it's not officially supported by Xilinx but in practice
    that really never caused too much of a problem.

    I really like to create a schematic top level with blocks that are
    either more schematics themselves or directly vhdl blocks. That way
    it's much easier to see how everything connects together, it helps
    comprehension. I don't quite understand why some people insist on
    writing direct VHDL connections between blocks. It's a little bit like
    insisting on writing pspice netlists for simulations instead of using
    the schematic editor. Active-HDL converts schematics to vhdl code
    anyway, so it's never too late to go back to vhdl-only code. The
    resulting code will be very clean if you keep your top level free of
    logic.

    The state-machine editor in Active-HDL is another story. To me simple
    state machines don't need to be represented by a diagram to be
    understood. On the other hand, large ones are hard to represent in a
    diagram. So in the end I only write vhdl state machines.

    Patrick
     
    Patrick Dubois, Jun 19, 2008
    #7
  8. "Mike Treseler" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > SynopsysFPGAexpress wrote:
    >> As commodity PC hardware and prouctivity applications deline in price,
    >> EDA tools are as (relatively) expensive as ever, necessitating yet
    >> another discussion of "Which simulator is right for me?"

    >
    > This reads like a thinly veiled marketing survey.


    It is, I apologize if I mislead anyone. I wanted to hear other people's
    choices and
    compare them to my situation.

    >> Kidding aside, my real requirements:

    > Which part were you kidding about?


    For gHDL and Icarus Verilog, I said "emacs/gvim not included." It was a
    poor attempt at humor.

    >> 1) I foresee mixed-HDL as a *requirement* for any serious consulting job.
    >> (Xilinx and Altera are pretty good about providing 'HDL-neutral IP', but
    >> third-parties aren't.)

    >
    > The device vendors are only HDL-neutral because
    > they are selling device netlists, not source code.
    > Not a plus in my book.


    That's something I didn't think about, and I checked Xilinx's website.
    It turns out, some of their IP-blocks (Microblaze, PCIe, PPC440, etc.) use
    a new 'SecureIP' format, and so far, only Modelsim is supported. That
    doesn't bode well, either...

    http://www.xilinx.com/support/answers/30481.htm
     
    SynopsysFPGAexpress, Jun 20, 2008
    #8
  9. SynopsysFPGAexpress

    rickman Guest

    On Jun 19, 2:35 pm, Kevin Neilson
    <> wrote:
    > SynopsysFPGAexpress wrote:
    > > As commodity PC hardware and prouctivity applications deline in price, EDA
    > > tools are as (relatively) expensive as ever, necessitating yet another
    > > discussion of "Which simulator is right for me?"

    >
    > > The contendors are ...

    > ...
    >
    > If you have Xilinx ISE 10.1, check out ISIM, which comes "free" with it.
    > It's much improved and may meet your needs and in future releases
    > should have better a better user interface. I don't think it currently
    > supports SystemVerilog, (and you are correct in propagating your
    > religion) but might soon. Modelsim is still the best, but you pay for a
    > lot of things you don't really need, and the waveform viewer could be
    > improved. That's where you spend 90% of your time during debugging so
    > it should be a little easier to use.
    > -Kevin


    Apologies if you are a Xilinx person, but I tried their Web Pack
    edition with the in house tools and the simulator really sucks... or
    blows or something not so good. Although I didn't see any issues with
    the simulation speed, the compile speed is pretty slow. I was using
    it for a while when my design was pretty small and the compiles were
    taking half a minute. Using Aldec Active HDL the compiles take a
    second for a much larger design and the simulation speed is not bad
    considering that it is "crippled"ware.

    Xilinx seems committed to improving their in house sim. I posted
    about in a news group and got a reply from one of the developers which
    was almost apologetic and sincerely interested in what I found
    lacking.

    In the meantime I expect to stick with commercial packages. When I do
    make the switch, it will likely be to an open source simulator.

    Rick
     
    rickman, Jun 20, 2008
    #9
  10. SynopsysFPGAexpress

    rickman Guest

    On Jun 19, 6:10 pm, Patrick Dubois <> wrote:
    > On 18 juin, 21:01, "SynopsysFPGAexpress" <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > As commodity PC hardware and prouctivity applications deline in price, EDA
    > > tools are as (relatively) expensive as ever, necessitating yet another
    > > discussion of "Which simulator is right for me?"

    >
    > > The contendors are ...

    >
    > > 1) Aldec Active-HDL
    > > + great design-flow assistants (state-diagram, block-diagram,
    > > waveform-diagram editing, export to PDF)
    > > + possibly faster than Modelsim/PE?
    > > - no direct support in FPGA design-suites (Webpack/Quartus)
    > > - Windoze only (can WINE 1.0 run it?)
    > > - Systemverilog is almost but not quite usable ('package' not
    > > supported?!?)
    > > "less than $6000 for mixed-lang. VHDL+Verilog simulation"
    > > (Note, that configuration is the most basic, doesn't have
    > > SWIFT/Smartmodel)
    > > [first year pepetual-license, yearly maint. is additional 20%/year]

    >
    > One vote for Active-HDL. I briefly used Modelsim before we bought
    > Active-HDL and for me anyway, the Active-HDL interface is much better.
    > It's true that it's not officially supported by Xilinx but in practice
    > that really never caused too much of a problem.
    >
    > I really like to create a schematic top level with blocks that are
    > either more schematics themselves or directly vhdl blocks. That way
    > it's much easier to see how everything connects together, it helps
    > comprehension. I don't quite understand why some people insist on
    > writing direct VHDL connections between blocks. It's a little bit like
    > insisting on writing pspice netlists for simulations instead of using
    > the schematic editor. Active-HDL converts schematics to vhdl code
    > anyway, so it's never too late to go back to vhdl-only code. The
    > resulting code will be very clean if you keep your top level free of
    > logic.


    I use a purely HDL hierarchy. I find that top level schematics or
    even low level schematics of large functions tend to end up being more
    like a net list than a drawing anyway. You have pins with names X,Y,Z
    connected to net R,S,T on page 1. On page 2 you have nets R,S,T
    connected to another part with pin names A,B,C. Making it a drawing
    doesn't add much in my opinion. Once I gave up hope for schematics
    and embraced the HDL world, I found joy in a life of text files and
    the infinite advantages they have in the land of version control!


    > The state-machine editor in Active-HDL is another story. To me simple
    > state machines don't need to be represented by a diagram to be
    > understood. On the other hand, large ones are hard to represent in a
    > diagram. So in the end I only write vhdl state machines.


    I agree. Again a diagram can only offer a bit more here than can the
    HDL text file, but I don't like using special tools that make the code
    more difficult to port. Keeping it in HDL can work well and has all
    of those text and portability advantages.

    Rick
     
    rickman, Jun 20, 2008
    #10
  11. SynopsysFPGAexpress

    HT-Lab Guest

    "General Schvantzkopf" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:01:59 -0700, SynopsysFPGAexpress wrote:
    >
    >> As commodity PC hardware and prouctivity applications deline in price,
    >> EDA tools are as (relatively) expensive as ever, necessitating yet
    >> another discussion of "Which simulator is right for me?"

    >
    > I've done some benchmarking on Verilog simulators.


    Lies, damn lies and benchmarks :)

    > Here are the times for
    > running our regression suite on one of our cores.
    > I ran the test suite on
    > Cadence NCSim on CentOS5, Mentor's Questa on both CentOS5 and XP, and
    > Altera's Modelsim on CentOS5.


    Benchmarking is very difficult and not only requires multiple designs and
    knowing the environment inside out you also need to know what the simulator
    is doing to your code. Verilog has the advantage(?) that you can tweak the
    simulator to improve performance however, this might break some simulations.
    (Un)fortunately this is not possible with VHDL which is far more stricter in
    what you can do with the compiler. Using one core without mentioning how
    you measured it, simulator/compiler settings, versions etc is not much use
    IMHO.

    > The system is a 3GHz Core2 with 8G of DDR.
    > NC is the fastest but Questa on CentOS5 is close. Questa on XP is much
    > slower then it is on Linux.


    I found the same.

    > The Altera ModelSim is dog slow which is to
    > be expected, I'm sure that Mentor has deliberately crippled it.


    This is fully documented. I believe the OEM versions are about 40% of PE,
    however, the problem is that after a certain number of lines it grinds to a
    halt and becomes completely useless.

    Hans
    www.ht-lab.com


    >
    > NC, Linux 0:06:34
    > Questa, Linux 0:07:15
    > Questa, XP 0:18:14
    > Altera ModelSim, Linux 1:00:13
     
    HT-Lab, Jun 20, 2008
    #11
  12. SynopsysFPGAexpress

    kkoorndyk Guest

    On Jun 19, 5:42 pm, (Joseph H Allen) wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > Jason Zheng  <> wrote:
    >
    > >Invoke vsim with -do "log -r *; run -all; quit -f" and -wlf
    > >"mydump.wlf", and you'll get similar results (just in a different
    > >format). In my experience ncsim is faster than Modelsim, and of course
    > >it carries a higher price tag.

    >
    > This didn't work, but I eventually figured it out:
    >
    > Start with an empty directory except for some verilog files you want to
    > simulate:
    >
    > # Create work directory
    > vlib work
    >
    > # Compile verilog files (vcom for vhdl)
    > vlog tb.v
    > vlog dut.v
    >
    > # Simulate
    > vsim -do "log -r *; run -all; quit -f" work.tb
    >
    >    - this creates a vsim.wlf file with everything in it just
    >      as you say.
    >
    > Now try to view the waveform.  If I try:
    >
    > vsim -wlf vsim.wlf work.tb -do "view wave; add wave *"
    >
    > This brings up modelsim GUI and opens the waveform viewer window.  All of
    > signals are in the viewer, and they're all empty.
    >
    > But this does work:
    >
    > vsim -view vsim.wlf -do "view wave; add wave *"
    >
    > but it won't work after you have done the previous vsim -wlf command, vsim
    > -wlf does something to the .wlf file or sets something in an initialization
    > file somewhere.  I had to re-run the simulation before "vsim -view ..." for
    > it to work.
    >


    The "-wlf XXXX.wlf" option renames the output file to 'XXXX.wlf'. So
    if you run your sim and then run the command with the -view option,
    it'll work fine. If you run 'vsim -wlf vsim.wlf work.tb -do "view
    wave; add wave *"', it erases your previous vsim.wlf and opens a new
    one with that name. That's why the waveform opens with no data.

    I'll typically add the signals I want to log to a .do file instead of
    logging all of the signals in a design. The more signals you log, the
    slower ModelSIM runs.


    >
    > I notice that when the GUI is open, I can't also run a simulation on the
    > command line because there is only one license.
    >


    Yea, but if you have the GUI open already, why not just run the sim in
    the GUI?
     
    kkoorndyk, Jun 20, 2008
    #12
  13. On 19 juin, 22:45, rickman <> wrote:

    > I use a purely HDL hierarchy. I find that top level schematics or
    > even low level schematics of large functions tend to end up being more
    > like a net list than a drawing anyway. You have pins with names X,Y,Z
    > connected to net R,S,T on page 1. On page 2 you have nets R,S,T
    > connected to another part with pin names A,B,C. Making it a drawing
    > doesn't add much in my opinion. Once I gave up hope for schematics
    > and embraced the HDL world, I found joy in a life of text files and
    > the infinite advantages they have in the land of version control!


    I agree that a top level schematic is exactly like a netlist, but the
    difference to me anyway is that I can quickly grasp how each blocks
    are connected together. I try to keep most blocks on one large 11x17
    page. Here's an example of what I mean:
    http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=download&ufid=B152F0A35F44CD17

    With a netlist, I have to read the several lines of vhdl code to
    understand how the blocks are connected and that takes a longer time.
    Ideally, the vhdl netlist is also accompanied by a block diagram. With
    the schematics flow, the block diagram comes free.

    The drawbacks of course are the version control problems associated
    with schematics files and the lack of a standard file format. To me
    the version control issues are not a big deal because all the meat is
    in the vhdl blocks anyway, not the top level.

    Patrick
     
    Patrick Dubois, Jun 20, 2008
    #13
  14. General Schvantzkopf wrote:

    > The Altera ModelSim is dog slow which is to
    > be expected, I'm sure that Mentor has deliberately crippled it.
    >
    > NC, Linux 0:06:34
    > Questa, Linux 0:07:15
    > Questa, XP 0:18:14
    > Altera ModelSim, Linux 1:00:13



    Thanks for taking the time to run the test
    and for sharing the results.
    Interesting that speed is roughly proportional
    to the cost of the license.

    While the oem version is "dog slow" in this lineup,
    it is still quite useful for debugging rtl
    when all the licenses are checked out.

    -- Mike Treseler
     
    Mike Treseler, Jun 20, 2008
    #14
  15. SynopsysFPGAexpress

    Jason Zheng Guest

    On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:52:13 -0500
    General Schvantzkopf <> wrote:

    > The NFS mounted host directory performance on VMware was
    > about the same as native XP performance which leads me to believe
    > that XP's problem is it's file system.


    That's hardly a convincing proof that all the performance increase is
    due to file system. In my experience, NFS does slow down ncsim a lot
    when I turn on the waveform dumping, but without waveform dumping,
    there is no noticeable performance difference after the
    design elaboration.

    I'm not saying filesystem isn't part of it, but for a long simulation
    with no data logging, 99% of the time the simulator is not doing file
    I/O. Rather, I believe the following two play a more major role in the
    speed difference:

    1. Context switching. Linux is very very good at this. In a workstation
    environment where I/O interrupts happen hundreds of times a second,
    context switching happens everytime the CPU switch to run from one
    process to the next one. What's good about the Linux kernel is that you
    can tune a lot of things: the amount of interrupts, how frequently
    the kernel service them, and how pre-emptible the kernel is. A
    fine-tuned batch server can very fast. Not so much help from XP. I
    believe Windows 2000 does have an option to choose between server and
    desktop mode, but not sure what difference it makes.

    2. Memory management. Linux is again very very good at this. Filesystem
    caching and virtual memory management works hand-in-hand. My 1GB RAM
    workstation ran 99.9% of time without going to swap partition, whereas
    in Windows XP, the same workstation constantly sees harddrive
    thrashing, especially after running a very memory intensive job.



    --
    Faster, faster, you fool, you fool!
    -- Bill Cosby
     
    Jason Zheng, Jun 20, 2008
    #15
  16. Patrick Dubois wrote:

    > I really like to create a schematic top level with blocks that are
    > either more schematics themselves or directly vhdl blocks.


    I agree with rickman on the notion of a pure HDL hierarchy,
    but, like you, I also like to see structural views at all levels,
    including the top. However, I don't like to edit
    or to maintain graphical sources.

    I let the quartus rtl viewer draw my schematics
    based on my synthesis code alone.
    I can bring it up live to drill down
    module by module or print out pdfs
    at any level like this:
    http://mysite.verizon.net/miketreseler/uart.pdf
    http://mysite.verizon.net/miketreseler/stack.pdf

    > The state-machine editor in Active-HDL is another story. To me simple
    > state machines don't need to be represented by a diagram to be
    > understood. On the other hand, large ones are hard to represent in a
    > diagram. So in the end I only write vhdl state machines.


    Yes, a case statement is easy to write, read, and sim.
    Drawing curvy arrows and attaching equations is fun once.

    -- Mike Treseler
     
    Mike Treseler, Jun 20, 2008
    #16
  17. > On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 07:51:58 -0700, Mike Treseler wrote:
    >> While the oem version is "dog slow" in this lineup, it is still quite
    >> useful for debugging rtl when all the licenses are checked out.


    General Schvantzkopf wrote:
    > What should be of most interest to anyone who is looking to buy a serious
    > simulator is the difference between Linux and XP.


    I thought maybe that went without saying.
    It is the main reason I maintain an SE license.
    Not only is it faster in linux (your numbers look about right to me),
    but I can take advantage of the ease of scripting
    make and vsim commands to do things like daily
    builds and verification from an svn repository.

    > I ran the same version
    > VMware's shared folders were just as fast as
    > VMware's virtual disk performance i.e. about 10% slower then the native
    > performance.


    Thanks for the VMware info.
    I'm still old-school with
    two optiplex boxes and a kvm switch.

    -- Mike Treseler
     
    Mike Treseler, Jun 20, 2008
    #17
  18. SynopsysFPGAexpress

    ghelbig Guest

    On Jun 20, 11:21 am, General Schvantzkopf <>
    wrote:
    > Regardless of the source of the IO performance problems, the
    > effect was dramatic which is why I'm assuming that it's disk IO that's
    > XP's problem. However I'm willing to concede that this is just a guess,
    > it could be any number of other factors as many posters have pointed out.
    > My original point was that if you are going to shell out for an expensive
    > simulator like NC, VCS or Questa, you shouldn't cripple it by running on
    > Windows.


    My tests indicate that the virtual memory manager in windows causes
    large simulations to run at 10% of the speed of a Linux/Unix/Solaris
    box.

    Which validates your original point.

    G.
     
    ghelbig, Jun 20, 2008
    #18
  19. SynopsysFPGAexpress

    rickman Guest

    On Jun 20, 10:46 am, Patrick Dubois <> wrote:
    > On 19 juin, 22:45, rickman <> wrote:
    >
    > > I use a purely HDL hierarchy. I find that top level schematics or
    > > even low level schematics of large functions tend to end up being more
    > > like a net list than a drawing anyway. You have pins with names X,Y,Z
    > > connected to net R,S,T on page 1. On page 2 you have nets R,S,T
    > > connected to another part with pin names A,B,C. Making it a drawing
    > > doesn't add much in my opinion. Once I gave up hope for schematics
    > > and embraced the HDL world, I found joy in a life of text files and
    > > the infinite advantages they have in the land of version control!

    >
    > I agree that a top level schematic is exactly like a netlist, but the
    > difference to me anyway is that I can quickly grasp how each blocks
    > are connected together. I try to keep most blocks on one large 11x17
    > page. Here's an example of what I mean:http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?action=download&ufid=B152F0A35F...
    >
    > With a netlist, I have to read the several lines of vhdl code to
    > understand how the blocks are connected and that takes a longer time.
    > Ideally, the vhdl netlist is also accompanied by a block diagram. With
    > the schematics flow, the block diagram comes free.
    >
    > The drawbacks of course are the version control problems associated
    > with schematics files and the lack of a standard file format. To me
    > the version control issues are not a big deal because all the meat is
    > in the vhdl blocks anyway, not the top level.


    I agree completely with the enhanced readability of a drawing at a
    high level. The details are not improved at all, but it is easy to
    see the large scale connections in a drawing. I guess I just don't
    bother to use a schematic for that, I just make a block diagram to go
    with the HDL.

    It is a shame that there is no standard way of representing drawings.
    This would help a lot with the other issues of version control, etc.
    But my preference would be to use software which would *produce* a
    drawing from the source code. Even if it required the user to draw
    the connection lines, it would be helpful to have a program that would
    create the symbols and keep them in sync with the HDL code for each
    module. I would find this useful even at lower levels. After all, a
    picture is worth a thousand words, right?

    As long as we are talking about our "wish list", I would also like an
    editor that was smart enough to complete words and sentences in my
    HDL. There are any number of ways that a program can track what you
    are doing and try to anticipate your actions as you type. For
    example, if I am creating a clocked process and typing an assignment
    for a signal or variable , it would be nice to have the software know
    that it needs a definition and an initialization in the reset portion
    of the process. So as soon as I enter the assignment, it would take
    me to the appropriate spot for the definition and start it for me to
    complete followed by the same for the initialization in the reset
    section of the process.

    If I am typing a "with" statement, I want the software to see the word
    "with" and put the rest of the structure on the screen for me to fill
    in the blanks. I find all the typing to be tedious and error prone,
    not to mention that after all these years, I still don't have the
    syntax memorized and keep a small stack of books by my elbow.

    Just think how nice it would be to have the editor add the appropriate
    conversion function when you type an assignment between incompatible
    signals. No error message telling you that you need to convert that
    integer to an unsigned, it just adds the conversion!

    I hate to use a microsoft product as an example of the "right" way to
    do anything, but the version of Word that I use does a pretty good job
    of completing words for me sometimes. Even though it is not always
    accurate, I have to admit that it does a pretty impressive job of
    spell checking and syntax checking, and that is with *English*, not a
    well defined language like VHDL or Verilog. I can only imagine that
    it would be a much easier job to implement something similar for an
    HDL. (spell checkers don't catch when you type and instead of an
    though...)

    Rick
     
    rickman, Jun 22, 2008
    #19
  20. rickman wrote:

    > But my preference would be to use software which would *produce* a
    > drawing from the source code.


    Quartus rtl viewer does that.

    > As long as we are talking about our "wish list", I would also like an
    > editor that was smart enough to complete words and sentences in my
    > HDL.


    Emacs vhdl-mode completes words.

    -- Mike Treseler
     
    Mike Treseler, Jun 22, 2008
    #20
    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. Seth
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    6,074
    Asfandyar Khan
    Jul 1, 2003
  2. KaRtiK
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    497
    fabbl
    Jan 29, 2004
  3. melhosseini
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    2,381
    walidelmasry
    Nov 2, 2009
  4. rickman

    Active HDL simulator

    rickman, Jun 5, 2008, in forum: VHDL
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    621
    Mike Treseler
    Aug 13, 2008
  5. Vikram
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    834
    Vikram
    Jul 24, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page