Talk:Verilator: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:54, 26 July 2009

Computing Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is my first effort at providing a page documenting Verilator, and I have focussed on providing references to establish why this is a notable tool. I'd particularly appreciate help with more commercial references. I am aware (from my professional background) of numerous companies using Verilator, but I can't add them to the article without a credible reference. The section on technology and features needs more expansion. I'll write more there another day, but I'd appreciate help from others with experience of Verilator. Jeremybennett (talk) 15:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

This is a well-written article with good sources, but some parts need more information. -down load | sign! 22:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on Usage Section

Declaration of Interest: I am a former employee of ARC International referenced in this section, and worked on their VTOC product for some years.

A contributor suggested deleting the section on usage, because the removed material is false, because he/she had worked for at least one company that did signoff-grade simulation with Verilator.

I've restored this pending a discussion here, since I couldn't see that the section removed actually addressed the issue raised. It only talked about general adoption seen within the market, as illustrated by the references to the article. It made no reference to commercial sign-off, in the absence of any external reference to that subject. Two products are referenced directly in this section. Both claim comparison with Verilator technology, and indeed one of these is itself referenced in comparison on the Verilator website.

This perhaps needs expanding, to show comparative data on revenues for the various technologies to justify the comments about adoption.

It would be good to add the information from the contributor to say that there are companies that use Verilator for sign-off. So it would be better to add to this section on this subject, particularly if an external reference to reinforce this claim could be provided.

Discussion and comments here much encouraged, so we can get this section as accurate as possible. Thanks,

Jeremybennett (talk) 09:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 ==Assessment==
 This is a well-written article with good sources, but some parts need more information.  <font face="Papyrus">'''<font color=#9966CC>-</font>[[User:Download|<font color=#7B68EE>down</font>]][[User talk:Download|<font color=#9966CC>load</font>]] <font color=#7B68EE><nowiki>|</nowiki></font> [[User:Download/Guestbook|<font color=#8A2BE2>sign!</font>]]'''</font> 22:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
+== Discussion on Usage Section ==
+'''Declaration of Interest''': I am a former employee of ARC International referenced in this section, and worked on their VTOC product for some years.
+A contributor suggested deleting the section on usage, because the removed material is false, because he/she had worked for at least one company that did signoff-grade simulation with Verilator.
+I've restored this pending a discussion here, since I couldn't see that the section removed actually addressed the issue raised. It only talked about general adoption seen within the market, as illustrated by the references to the article. It made no reference to commercial sign-off, in the absence of any external reference to that subject. Two products are referenced directly in this section. Both claim comparison with Verilator technology, and indeed one of these is itself referenced in comparison on the Verilator website.
+This perhaps needs expanding, to show comparative data on revenues for the various technologies to justify the comments about adoption.
+It would be good to add the information from the contributor to say that there are companies that use Verilator for sign-off. So it would be better to ''add'' to this section on this subject, particularly if an external reference to reinforce this claim could be provided.
+Discussion and comments here much encouraged, so we can get this section as accurate as possible. Thanks,
+[[User:Jeremybennett|Jeremybennett]] ([[User talk:Jeremybennett|talk]]) 09:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)