EDAToolsCafe
   >> EDA User News and Reviews
Thread views: 20755 View all threadsNext thread*

Akiva Michelson
(Unregistered)
06/29/06 08:48 AM
Goal Driven Verification is the way to go... Report this article as Inappropriate to us !!!Login to Reply


I like the analysis and the questions asked. I get the feeling that many people don't really inquire "Do we know what we're getting ourselves into?" on the onset of the project. Schedules are frequently set by wishing, rather than in-depth analysis.
I think that one of the biggest mistakes in verification is poor definition of the expected outcome of the project. This is a double edged sword, on the one hand if you don’t clearly state what features in which configuration are important than people might skip one of the critical ones, but overstating and defining an amorphous “0 bug goal” can have your engineers rat-holing for weeks in inconsequential spec gibberish.
Back to languages; Once you have defined a clear project goal, it will be easier to research which language gives you the capabilities to define your simulation goals (functional coverage points), create meaningful random data, and execute your project smoothly.



Entire thread
SubjectPosted byPosted on
*Verification Languages: 3 points to ponder beyond "which one?"  06/24/06 08:16 AM
.*Goal Driven Verification is the way to go...Akiva Michelson  06/29/06 08:48 AM
.*There are no short cuts to verificationSunil Kakkar  06/24/06 08:16 AM
Jump to

 

DownStream: Solutions for Post Processing PCB Designs
Verific: SystemVerilog & VHDL Parsers
TrueCircuits: UltraPLL



Internet Business Systems © 2016 Internet Business Systems, Inc.
595 Millich Dr., Suite 216, Campbell, CA 95008
+1 (408)-337-6870 — Contact Us, or visit our other sites:
AECCafe - Architectural Design and Engineering TechJobsCafe - Technical Jobs and Resumes GISCafe - Geographical Information Services  MCADCafe - Mechanical Design and Engineering ShareCG - Share Computer Graphic (CG) Animation, 3D Art and 3D Models
  Privacy Policy