Talk:Verilator

first effort

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]

I've added some new references following the recent Design Verification Club meeting on open source EDA, at which three papers relating to Verilator were presented (Declaration of Interest, I presented one of the papers). Jeremybennett (talk) 13:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Verilator. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]