Cadence® system design and verification solutions, integrated under our System Development Suite, provide the simulation, acceleration, emulation, and management capabilities.
System Development Suite Related Products A-Z
Cadence® digital design and signoff solutions provide a fast path to design closure and better predictability, helping you meet your power, performance, and area (PPA) targets.
Full-Flow Digital Solution Related Products A-Z
Cadence® custom, analog, and RF design solutions can help you save time by automating many routine tasks, from block-level and mixed-signal simulation to routing and library characterization.
Overview Related Products A-Z
Driving efficiency and accuracy in advanced packaging, system planning, and multi-fabric interoperability, Cadence® package implementation products deliver the automation and accuracy.
Cadence® PCB design solutions enable shorter, more predictable design cycles with greater integration of component design and system-level simulation for a constraint-driven flow.
An open IP platform for you to customize your app-driven SoC design.
Comprehensive solutions and methodologies.
Helping you meet your broader business goals.
A global customer support infrastructure with around-the-clock help.
24/7 Support - Cadence Online Support
Locate the latest software updates, service request, technical documentation, solutions and more in your personalized environment.
Cadence offers various software services for download. This page describes our offerings, including the Allegro FREE Physical Viewer.
Get the most out of your investment in Cadence technologies through a wide range of training offerings.
This course combines our Allegro PCB Editor Basic Techniques, followed by Allegro PCB Editor Intermediate Techniques.
Virtuoso Analog Design Environment Verifier 16.7
Learn learn to perform requirements-driven analog verification using the Virtuoso ADE Verifier tool.
Exchange ideas, news, technical information, and best practices.
The community is open to everyone, and to provide the most value, we require participants to follow our Community Guidelines that facilitate a quality exchange of ideas and information.
It's not all about the technlogy. Here we exchange ideas on the Cadence Academic Network and other subjects of general interest.
Cadence is a leading provider of system design tools, software, IP, and services.
I'm sure this is a frequently asked question (FAQ)
When we turn on SVA in our simulations, some of our long-running concurrent assertions are triggering failures at the end of the simulation. It appears the assertion triggered, but the simulaiton $finish before the assertion had a chance to complete (either vacuously-succeed, or normal succeed.)
When the assetoin-report is issued, these 'dangling' assertions are classified as failures.
Is there a way to change the report, or change the assertion-behavior so dangling-assertions are not reported as failures?
IUS uses "strong" semantics when evaluating SVA sequences. If the enabling conditionof a sequential assertion has been satisfied, but it is incomplete at the end ofsimulation, IUS reports it as a failure. To see these failures in the assertionsummary, you must use the "-final" option to the Tcl "assertion" command: assertion -summary -finalYou can use the following Tcl variable to turn off the use of these strongsemantics for both SVA and PSL assertions:set assert_report_incompletes 0
In reply to Mickey:
It seems like I should have read the manual more carefully!
that was exactly what I was looking for!
In reply to cubicle82:
SVA failures can be a bit confusing like this, especially if you're used to PSL.
In SVA, all assertions are defined as "strong" meaning that they must finish before the end of simulation, else they fail at the end of simulation. In PSL you have a choice of the default "weak" assertion which won't automatically fail at the end, or you can use the "!" operator to force an assertion to be strong.
Another thing you may see (at least, I've nearly tripped over it a couple of times) is that classic thing of looking a the bottom of the screen and reading the first error that you see on the screen. If you see an SVA assertion has failed at the end of the sim, and you think it is a bit weird, then your first reaction needs to be to scroll up through the log to look for some other thing that has terminated the sim.
For example in an OVM testbench, did some class-based check terminate with a dut_error()? If so, you'll see that message much further up the log compared to any final (and spurious) SVA failures...
All good fun, I suppose ;-)
Thanks it is very useful information. But I wonder if there is a way to selectively say which assertions need to be strongly evaluated and which assertions to be weakly evaluated?
In reply to araju:
In the 2012 version of the SVA LRM, the IEEE changed the default behavior of assertions to weak. The Incisive 13.2 release matches that change. By default, all SVA assertions start as weak. The SVA language added a keyword, "strong" to identify sequences that have to finish before the simulation ends.
assert property ( @(posedge clk) $rose(request) |-> strong ( ##
So if you can switch to 13.2, you can get the individual control that you are asking for.