( ESNUG 405 Item 6 ) --------------------------------------------- [01/29/03]
From: [ Curious George ]
Subject: Averant Solidify vs Real Intent vs 0-in vs Verplex vs Tempus Fugit
Hi, John,
We used Averant's Solidfy briefly a year ago. Their property language was
very powerful, but the tool failed to deliver results. It is very easy to
write complex properties for easier checks with the language. This made
the tool spend days without any results. Finally the design engineers gave
up on using Solidify.
The reason I want to be anon is because, I am evaluating Real Intent and
0-In automatic checks. I am afraid that my opinions might be not based on
all facts. But at the same time, I would like to know what others are
thinking.
Verplex BlackTie automatic checks, Real Intent's Verix Implied Intent and
0-In's CheckList are the products competing in this space. I find all of
them almost the same except that whether they support mixed language or not.
My questions:
- what's the market share of Verplex, Real Intent, 0-In and Tempus Fugit?
- what equivalence checking tools can't find "like" semantic checks?
- right now the companies are coming up with three kinds of tools.
Automatic Checks
User Defined Checks
Pre-written properties for standard protocols like PCI, USB etc...
what's the market share of each above type of ABV?
At the same time, we also would like to verify the standard protocols
such as USB, PCI etc. using formal tools with the monitors provided by
vendors. Tempus Fugit and 0-in have products in this area.
- What are user's experiences with these tools? Are there any IP
providers working on Sugar or System Verilog based assertions?
Having used formal tools a little, it was annoying to debug thousands
of warnings. I started to like the 0-In's approach of building on
simulation results.
- [ Curious George ]
|
|
