I’ll suggest, secure a group of individuals that documents many experiments as possible using your current open and payed versions. Use them in any forum you visit. You need to demonstrate value apart from “it’s FOSS”. If customer don’t want to use vendor tools, you have it easy.
-
-
I have documented many experiments at http://zipcpu.com using SymbiYosys. For example, here's a list of the types of bugs you might find while formally verifying a CPU: http://zipcpu.com/blog/2018/04/02/formal-cpu-bugs.html … Is there something in particular that you would be looking for?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I'm retiring this year, have been doing presentations for long time and helping colleagues to prepare its talks and slides. Whereas your blog gives the technical impression, it still lacks the attraction.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
If I wanted to go and pursue my boss to buy a license of your tool because it will help me to do X and Y much faster, I need to give him strong evidence to backup my decision. This does not. If I need to learn FPV, I don’t want to download a bunch of packages and then what?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Targeting advanced users, where’s the COI? where I can see the compute FPV effort? why you use a lot of costly assertions/assumptions? where I see a CEX? How does it looks like?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
why you use always @(*) with an immediate assertion and what you do to force any event on the sensitivity list that has to be triggered at time 0 to be sampled correctly? you may have scape bugs there, more likely to happen in FSMs.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
How do you tell your FPV is done? Can your tool extract properties by itself?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
How to tell when your FPV proof is done? The solver returns with either "PASS", "FAIL", "UNKNOWN" or "ERROR". It's actually pretty obvious when you do it. A longer discussion could be had regarding how deep to make the proof.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
No, that's the passing criteria of a single proof. I'm speaking of when you can say you have exercised enough states of your K model to call it "done". I didn't say "proof", I said FPV (Formal Property Verification), you don't speak on terms of single proofs on static functional
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
verification. You speak in terms of how these small portions covers (not as in cover property) your logic to call it finished.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Yes, we do have a mutation coverage tool that isn't public yet that addresses exactly this.
4:19 AM - 4 Apr 2019
0 replies
0 retweets
0 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.