Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > VHDL > arrrrg!

Reply
Thread Tools

arrrrg!

 
 
Ken Cecka
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-14-2009
Dave Higton wrote:

> In message <resll.181$(E-Mail Removed)>
> Ken Cecka <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> I just spent all afternoon trying to figure out why isimwave (the xilinx
>> simluation waveform viewer) was drawing my state machine value in red for
>> certain states.
>>
>> I believe I've finally tracked it down: if my state name contains the
>> letter 'X', xilinx draws it in red. For example, with the following
>> states:
>>
>> TYPE state_type IS ( STATE1, STATE2X );
>>
>> Any time a signal has the value STATE1, it will be drawn in green. If it
>> has the value STATE2X, it will be drawn in red.
>>
>> Posting this partly to see if others can confirm this behavior and/or
>> give a better explanation, and partly to get it documented somewhere for
>> the next poor soul who wonders what's causing there state machine to go
>> into an invalid state.
>>
>> Also, I'm guessing this should be considered a bug in isimwave - is
>> there anything in the language specification that says you can't use the
>> letter X in your enumerated state names?

>
> Widening the topic somewhat: isim is, by a country mile, the buggiest
> software I use. I have a case in at the moment reporting two bugs (I
> originally reported one, then another one came along...)
>
> I find that, if I have a lot of signals in the simulation window, the
> first simulation run after an edit of any of the source files causes
> the simulation window to be only partly drawn. I have to close it and
> re-run to get a fully drawn window. Also, infuriatingly, it will from
> time to time randomly alter the order of signals in the simulation
> window.


There seem to be a whole raft of issues in this area. It's become a compulsive behavior for me to kill the simulation and rerun it any time I look away from the screen, in case it went and did something funny when I wasn't keeping an eye on it.

More seriously, I couple of specific issues I've had repeatable problems with are: signals I add to the waveform view don't get drawn unless I restart the simulation, and for large projects, restarting the simulation sometimes results in partially drawn or completely incorrect waveforms, and can only be resolved by killing the simulation and rerunning.

>
> However, I find it dramatically faster than ModelSim.


Thus far, I've only worked with GHDL and isim, so I don't have a particularly high bar to measure against.

>
> A new version is expected to be released around April.
>
> Dave


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Dave Higton
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-14-2009
In message <DQFll.262$(E-Mail Removed)>
Ken Cecka <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Dave Higton wrote:
>
> > I find that, if I have a lot of signals in the simulation window, the
> > first simulation run after an edit of any of the source files causes the
> > simulation window to be only partly drawn. I have to close it and re-run
> > to get a fully drawn window. Also, infuriatingly, it will from time to
> > time randomly alter the order of signals in the simulation window.

>
> There seem to be a whole raft of issues in this area. It's become a
> compulsive behavior for me to kill the simulation and rerun it any time I
> look away from the screen, in case it went and did something funny when I
> wasn't keeping an eye on it.
>
> More seriously, I couple of specific issues I've had repeatable problems
> with are: signals I add to the waveform view don't get drawn unless I
> restart the simulation


I'm not sure this will turn out to be a bug. Added signals could
only be redrawn immediately if the previous simulation kept all
their values - and why would it, if the signal was not required
to be drawn?

> and for large projects, restarting the simulation
> sometimes results in partially drawn or completely incorrect waveforms, and
> can only be resolved by killing the simulation and rerunning.


That sounds like the same bug I'm seeing. Have you reported it?

Dave
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ken Cecka
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-14-2009
Dave Higton wrote:

> In message <DQFll.262$(E-Mail Removed)>
> Ken Cecka <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Dave Higton wrote:
>>
>> > I find that, if I have a lot of signals in the simulation window, the
>> > first simulation run after an edit of any of the source files causes
>> > the
>> > simulation window to be only partly drawn. I have to close it and
>> > re-run
>> > to get a fully drawn window. Also, infuriatingly, it will from time to
>> > time randomly alter the order of signals in the simulation window.

>>
>> There seem to be a whole raft of issues in this area. It's become a
>> compulsive behavior for me to kill the simulation and rerun it any time I
>> look away from the screen, in case it went and did something funny when I
>> wasn't keeping an eye on it.
>>
>> More seriously, I couple of specific issues I've had repeatable problems
>> with are: signals I add to the waveform view don't get drawn unless I
>> restart the simulation

>
> I'm not sure this will turn out to be a bug. Added signals could
> only be redrawn immediately if the previous simulation kept all
> their values - and why would it, if the signal was not required
> to be drawn?


Yes that makes sense.

>> and for large projects, restarting the simulation
>> sometimes results in partially drawn or completely incorrect waveforms,
>> and can only be resolved by killing the simulation and rerunning.

>
> That sounds like the same bug I'm seeing. Have you reported it?


I haven't yet. I need to boil it down to a minimal test case if possible, and haven't taken them time to do that yet. I have a couple of other defects like that on my TODO list. There's another one with partial association that crashes the simulation (don't recall if it's fuse or the simulation executable), but when I made a simple test case it worked fine And my favorite is when coregen cores spontaneously become blackboxed/unbound components until I regenerate them. I suppose I should probably submit webcases for these even without a simple testcase, but I've been on the receiving end of bug reports like that.

Ken
 
Reply With Quote
 
Al Muliman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-16-2009
On 14-02-2009 21:03, Ken Cecka wrote:
> Al Muliman wrote:
>
>> On 14-02-2009 14:56, Brian Drummond wrote:
>>
>>> Can you create a simple example and submit a Webcase?

>> Example created, webcase access pending.

>
> Thanks for the confirmation. I'll submit a webcase as well if you don't get a positive response to yours.
>

Webcase submitted with the title 'Special colors for signal names with
"X", "U", or "Z". '

 
Reply With Quote
 
Al Muliman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-16-2009
On 15-02-2009 14:35, Brian Drummond wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 20:03:09 GMT, Ken Cecka <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>> Al Muliman wrote:
>>> On 14-02-2009 14:56, Brian Drummond wrote:
>>>> Can you create a simple example and submit a Webcase?
>>> Example created, webcase access pending.

>> Thanks for the confirmation. I'll submit a webcase as well if you don't get a positive response to yours.

> If you post the CR# we can take turns opening webcases every few months to check
> on its status!

772064
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off




Advertisments