When I use simvision to view waveform, I found the signal ordrer in design browser is always alphabetical order,
it is not convenient for me. Can it be list same order as declared in RTL code?
I select View – Sort – By Declaration but it is still not same order as declared in code, I dont know why.
That "Sort->By Declaration" menu sorts by declaration type (i.e. same declaration types grouped together) , not by declaration order. Sorting by declaration order is not currently supported in the Design Browser.
However, there is a workaround. You can perform an area select (using click + drag) over the signal declarations in the Source Browser, and then send the selected signals, for example, to the Waveform window to add them in declaration order.
Thanks for your reply.
It is bad for me that Design Brower is not upported this feature, because I am testing AMBA IP, the master side and slave side signals are merged together in Design Brower and it is annoying to select signals one by one. I hope this feature will be supported for later version.
Thanks for your input.
I suggest working with your local AE to have an enhancement SR filed.
Also, if you have any issue with the workaround I provided, please feel free to reply.
Has something changed in the newest versions of Simvision??
It used to be that when you selected a list of signals within the Design Browser in Simvision and then sent them to the waveform view, they appeared in the order in which you selected them. So if you wanted signal B to appear above signal A in the waveform you needed to select B first, then A.
Annoyingly in the latest version of Simvision it seems to be overriding the order in which I have selected signals and insists on displaying everything in alphabetical order which is somewhat annoying as it's totally useless for debug purposes and I basically have to manually send signals to the waveform one-by-one....
Is there any way of turning off this new feature?!!
Thanks in advance,
Please give this a try again with the just released Incisive 13.10.011. This should be corrected.