**VITAL** Support and Modelling 
Author Message
 **VITAL** Support and Modelling

Quote:

> We are migrating from schematics entry to VHDL style designing. We
> have some basic doubts on VHDL coding. I hope you can guide us.

> 1) What are the performance and or feature differences between Model
> Technology's (PC) VHDL Siumlator and the Workview Office's (PC) VHDL
> simulator? If you are to select between these two which one would you
> prefer? Why most of the industrialists prefer Model Tech instead of
> WVOffice? The reason for why incline to WV is that we want to keep a
> single package for the entire design flow.

> 2) What is the improtance of VITAL? At which stage of the design will
> it be used? We are beginning with FPGA design entry first and
> ultimately, it is going to be targetted for ASIC. Now, we would like
> to know, whether we should begin the FPGA coding itself with VITAL? or
> we will have to directly write behavioural model for FPGA and then
> re-write the code for ASIC? What would be best implementation for a
> smooth transistion from FPGA VHDL to ASIC VHDL?

> 3) While we design, which approach is preferred such as:
> Behavioural-only, Structural-only, or Behavioural-Strucutral style?

> 4) The purpose of a behavioural code -- please correct me if I am wrong --
> that to confirm the concept and to develop a set of test vectors.
> Note down the behavioural simulation outputs. Then write the
> structural code and use the same test vectors which was used
> for behavioural simulation and then compare the output of the
> structural simulation with that of behavioural model.

> Hence, ultimately, the behavioural model is just used to confirm
> test vectors, and the wave outputs. But finally the structural
> model only need to be developed and cross-checked against the
> test vectors and the waves generated by the behavioural model.

> Kindly correct me if I am wrong.

> 4) If you have any other tips for entry level devlopers please let us
> know.

I have a tip on etiquette.  This posting asks the same basic questions
you asked me in a personal email, quoting my reply out of context, and
asking for "correction if you are wrong".  I don't mind you seeking
independent comment on my response to your questions, but the way you
have done it seems very rude to me.  Please act in a professional
manner.

Cheers,

PA

--


University of Cincinnati               Phone:   +1 513 556 4756
PO Box 210030                          Fax:     +1 513 556 7326
Cincinnati OH 45221-0030, USA

                http://www.*-*-*.com/ ~petera/
                      (includes PGP public key)



Sun, 02 Apr 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 **VITAL** Support and Modelling

Quote:

> > We are migrating from schematics entry to VHDL style designing. We
> > have some basic doubts on VHDL coding. I hope you can guide us.

> > 3) While we design, which approach is preferred such as:
> > Behavioural-only, Structural-only, or Behavioural-Strucutral style?

> > 4) The purpose of a behavioural code -- please correct me if I am wrong --
> > that to confirm the concept and to develop a set of test vectors.
> > Note down the behavioural simulation outputs. Then write the
> > structural code and use the same test vectors which was used
> > for behavioural simulation and then compare the output of the
> > structural simulation with that of behavioural model.

> > Hence, ultimately, the behavioural model is just used to confirm
> > test vectors, and the wave outputs. But finally the structural
> > model only need to be developed and cross-checked against the
> > test vectors and the waves generated by the behavioural model.

> > Kindly correct me if I am wrong.

Hi,

I think a lot of it depends on what your building.  If you are designing a system from the
top-down and do not have a good/strong set of requirements for any ASICs/FPGAs then using the
behavi{*filter*}models to flesh out the system functionality is much quicker (IMHO) than trying to
complete a syntheziable model of the same component.

Another benefit of having a behavi{*filter*}model is a common starting point for a the designers of
the FPGA/ASIC and the testers writing a testbench to start from.

Anyone else have input on this?

Todd

============================================================================
Todd Stevens                                          Voice:  (425) 885-8597
AlliedSignal Aerospace                                Fax:    (425) 885-2994
15001 NE 36th Street            
Redmond, WA  98073              
============================================================================

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Real Email: tricot at ix dot netcom dot com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Automated email spammers:  (The Federal Communications Commission Board)






Mon, 03 Apr 2000 03:00:00 GMT  
 
 [ 4 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. Pointer to up-to-date VITAL modelling Spec

2. VITAL Support Survey

3. Postgres support for data modelling?

4. Vital REALbasic ENHANCEMENTS needed

5. a vital question

6. Vital Announces New Version Of CRiSP Programmers Editor

7. IEEE VITAL Update Report - DAC'97 Bird's-of-a-Feather Session

8. Vital Library.

9. VITAL J-K FF Model

10. Q: Verilog VS VHDL/VITAL for Gate Level Simulation

11. How does VITAL work?

12. Simulation runtime VITAL vs. Verilog

 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software