I am planning to write a PCMCIA interface testbench. There are two languages I can select, verilog or e, how do I make a decision? Are there any person used both of them before and give me any advices?
Thx.
forget e. its almost dead. not many use this language anymore. too diffiult to learn and lacks many features of a better environment such as VERA. synopsys gives vera away free if you buy VCS simulator. The language of VERA is C++ so whatever test code you develop will be portable to other tools easier. If you can not afford vera then i suggest verilog. i would use even verilog rather than e/specman.
The answer dependes on how much money you can spend and how big is your design. If you are verifying a multi-million gates ASIC the best choices today are E or Vera (In 2 years from now it will probably be SystemVerilog).
But from your e-mail it seems to me you are doing block level verification. If that is the case verilog may still be a good/reasonable choice.
You may also want to consider SystemC which is gaining a lot of momentum specially in System level verification.
a few comments about previous e-mails:
- It is true that Vera resemmbles C++ but Vera is not C++ and it can not be portable to other tools. Vera is only supported by Synopsis.
- Vera is not free. What is free is VeraLight which is a subset of Vera and don'support the most advanced/poerfull features available in Vera. Vera is a competitor for E (in terms of completeness and power of the language) but VeraLight is not. For small projects VeraLight may be able to use VeraLight but for large ASICs you will need Vera or E.
I don't like testbench write use c++ ,becasue verilog
wire or reg have four variable,but c and c++ use 2 variable. when I use c or c++ to write testbench, i feel it have something i don't fell good.
to do verification, only verilog can't do very well.
because it need so many vectors to cover the design.
E can provide random test vectors, so using E will be a good choice.
systemverilog is not supported well now, and some temporal is not as well as e.