Sometimes I Just Don't Get the Tools

[rickman]

I've learned to use Active HDL some time ago and never had too much
trouble with it. But now it is not letting me use the waveform viewer in
an effective way. I typically add all my signals once and then as I
work on the design and recompile it uses the same signal on each
iteration of the edit/compile/simulate cycle.

Now it is deleting all my signals from the waveform every time I
recompile. Seems it is related to using the "advanced waveform editor".
I found a setting that says, "preserve signals when simulation is
initialized". WTF? I guess if you are doing everything from a
simulation batch file you just add these signals too, but what is the
purpose of automatically deleting them by default or at all? I would
think a batch file could easily delete any existing signals before
creating its display.

Sometimes I just don't get the mindset of the tool developers.

Rick

 

[valtih1978]

Now it is deleting all my signals from the waveform every time I

recompile. Seems it is related to using the "advanced waveform editor".

This option has always infuriated me. Thanks for saying that the problem
is the tool, not me.

 

[Rob Gaddi]

I've learned to use Active HDL some time ago and never had too much
trouble with it. But now it is not letting me use the waveform viewer in
an effective way. I typically add all my signals once and then as I
work on the design and recompile it uses the same signal on each
iteration of the edit/compile/simulate cycle.

Now it is deleting all my signals from the waveform every time I
recompile. Seems it is related to using the "advanced waveform editor".
I found a setting that says, "preserve signals when simulation is
initialized". WTF? I guess if you are doing everything from a
simulation batch file you just add these signals too, but what is the
purpose of automatically deleting them by default or at all? I would
think a batch file could easily delete any existing signals before
creating its display.

Sometimes I just don't get the mindset of the tool developers.

Rick

In my college transistor circuits course, back shortly before the
discovery of electricity, we were targetting -100dB THD, and verifying
against a distortion analyzer. Look at it on a scope, sine wave. Look
at it on the analyzer, nuthin'. Back and forth, over and over, for
10 minutes we couldn't get any results out of the distortion analyzer.

Turned out to have a tiny button next to the BNC called "Input
Disconnect". Or as we called it, the Broken button. Since then I've
been amazed at how many designers of how many things have felt the need
to include a Broken button.

 

[rickman]

In my college transistor circuits course, back shortly before the
discovery of electricity, we were targetting -100dB THD, and verifying
against a distortion analyzer. Look at it on a scope, sine wave. Look
at it on the analyzer, nuthin'. Back and forth, over and over, for
10 minutes we couldn't get any results out of the distortion analyzer.

Turned out to have a tiny button next to the BNC called "Input
Disconnect". Or as we called it, the Broken button. Since then I've
been amazed at how many designers of how many things have felt the need
to include a Broken button.

They charge extra for buttons on test gear, don't they... no matter how
banal...

I'm still struggling with this issue, but in a more limited scope. When
I compile bad code in a way that causes the tool to get upset enough to
forget what the top level module is, on fixing the problem and starting
the simulation the waveform display any variables on display can't be
found in the code and are deleted... stupid tools!

I guess my real issue is that I had been using an older version of the
tool and for whatever reason I'm pretty sure I wasn't allowed to use the
"advanced" waveform viewer. Now that I am using the *advanced* viewer,
I am finding that it is only advanced in some ways that I don't actually
perceive. I guess it might be faster. The simulations seem to run a
lot faster than with the old tool, but I'm comparing apples and oranges
in terms of the project. This one is still pretty small and is only
running at a quarter MHz.

At least I am learning to not "upset* the tools. Otherwise they try to
get revenge... spiteful tools!

Rick

 

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

(snip, someone wrote)

They charge extra for buttons on test gear, don't they... no matter how
banal...

I suppose, but more buttons means that marketing can advertize
them as additional features.

Reminds me of the hardest to find button on most oscilloscopes,
the on/off button (or knob or ...).

-- glen

 

[valtih1978]

I'm still struggling with this issue, but in a more limited scope. When
I compile bad code in a way that causes the tool to get upset enough to
forget what the top level module is, on fixing the problem and starting
the simulation the waveform display any variables on display can't be
found in the code and are deleted... stupid tools!

I remember it was loosing everything when (re)compiled a package.

 

[rickman]

I remember it was loosing everything when (re)compiled a package.

When I used the Active simulator before it would not delete signals from
the waveform display no matter what. I would eventually notice that a
signal was not showing a waveform, most likely because I had deleted the
signal from the code, and remove it from the display.

I can't say much about variables in the waveform viewer. I don't recall
having any problems with them, but I've not typically used them a lot,
at least I didn't have a lot of need to show their waveforms. I seem to
be using them more now and for more "important" signals. My test
benches are full of them and now I'm having these problems.

I would consider using a macro to add everything to the waveform
display, I think there is even a menu command to save the current
waveform setup as a .do file. But only the variables seem to be lost
now and only after starting the simulation. The .do file would have to
start the simulation, stop it immediately, delete all signals from the
waveform display, add them all back and then restart the simulation...
really?

There has to be a better way.

Rick