( ESNUG 436 Item 3 ) -------------------------------------------- [12/14/04]
Subject: Some EDA Vendors Suggest A Restructuring Of The DAC Trip Report
> I call it the "DAC Trip Report" because that's how it started 11 years
> ago as a 3 page review I wrote alone. It's now evolved into a massive
> annual user survey on all EDA tools. Last year it involved 492 users
> thoughts on 252 pages. That's why I publish it in late January; that's
> the best time to review the prior year (plus it gives me Christmas
> break to put this monster together!)
>
> - from http://www.deepchip.com/posts/0435.html
From: John Cooley <jcooley=user domain=zeroskew.com>
Hi, ESNUG readers,
To make a long story short, after a few phone calls with Verisity,
Cadence, Jasper, and Synopsys, it has been suggested that I move all the
RTL verification content of the DAC Trip Report to the DVcon Trip Report.
Here's the reasoning:
- The DVcon Trip Report comes just a few months after the DAC Trip
Report. Why duplicate the RTL verification questions and answers
in two reports that are months apart?
- RTL verification gets lost in the massive DAC Trip Report. It
deserves special attention to its complex issues in its own detailed
report instead of "me, too" coverage in the DAC Trip Report.
- Readers would rather get two 125 page reports focused on specific
types of tools & issues than one massive 250 page report. Let the
DAC Trip Report focus on design implementation and analog
design; the DVcon Trip Report gets RTL verification.
- (the part I like best) Moving all RTL verification user responses
to the DVcon Trip Report makes the DAC Trip Report less work to
put together.
I'm leaning towards doing this, but I feel I should do a sanity check here.
Should I make this change to the two reports or not?
If you could drop me a quick email choosing either
"Make The Change" - or - "Don't Do It"
would help a lot. Thanks.
- John Cooley
ESNUG/DeepChip.com
|
|
