Skip to content

add a reference to sv-tests #60

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

add a reference to sv-tests #60

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

josuah
Copy link

@josuah josuah commented Jul 20, 2022

This is a request for comments.

In #52 were discussed the use of SystemVerilog interfaces, and the reason stated was the absence of a complete tooling support. It is true that a few major tools part of the open source toolchain do not support them fully, like yosys for which it is WIP.

What about a referencne to sv-tests? This would hint that the motivation is not that interfaces are a confusing feature, but rather a poorly supported one.

If not interesting to have it there, feel free to close this.

Not all tools support all syntax constructs, before using a new
feature, checking that it is widely supported helps with
interoperability.

For instance, SystemVerilog interfaces, as discussed in #52, are not
available yet to Yosys and icarus verilog.
@GregAC
Copy link
Contributor

GregAC commented Jul 20, 2022

Thanks for the contribution @josuah

sv-tests is indeed a useful tool, though it does only cover open source tools. We want blocks written using the lowRISC style guide to be broadly useable across the whole EDA ecosystem which includes many proprietary tools.

Often limitations in language usage are born out from past experience with proprietary tools. So it's not as simple as looking at a feature matrix and seeing FooSynth doesn't support interfaces (if you can even find such a feature matrix). Unfortunately due to licensing and confidentiality agreements publicly documenting specific issues with specific tools is also fraught with difficulty.

So sv-tests alone isn't sufficient for our purposes, nor could we put together a similar matrix for proprietary tools (or at least make a public one).

Though the point is taken we should provide further justification for the exclusion of interfaces. Some wording to explain that interfaces have been observed to be poorly supported in some EDA flows could suffice.

@josuah
Copy link
Author

josuah commented Dec 17, 2022

I just noticed this remained open and I did not answer.
Thank you for the explanations once again. This makes complete sense,
It feels good to have a frame of reference collaborated with many people using many different tools.
This actually brings visibility and transparency where it was supposed impossible to have any (proprietary toolchains with NDAs).
Achievement!

@josuah josuah closed this Dec 17, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants