DOCSLIB.ORG

Dot / Faa /Tc-16/57

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Dot / Faa /Tc-16/57 DOT/FAA/TC-16/57 Commercial Off-The-Shelf Federal Aviation Administration William J. Hughes Technical Center Airborne Electronic Hardware Aviation Research Division Atlantic City International Airport Issues and Emerging Solutions: New Jersey 08405 Authority for Expenditure No. 75 Report September 2017 Final Report This document is available to the U.S. public through the National Technical Information Services (NTIS), Springfield, Virginia 22161. This document is also available from the Federal Aviation Administration William J. Hughes Technical Center at actlibrary.tc.faa.gov. U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof. The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the objective of this report. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the funding agency. This document does not constitute FAA policy. Consult the FAA sponsoring organization listed on the Technical Documentation page as to its use. This report is available at the Federal Aviation Administration William J. Hughes Technical Center’s Full-Text Technical Reports page: actlibrary.tc.faa.gov in Adobe Acrobat portable document format (PDF). Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. DOT/FAA/TC-16/57 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date COMMERCIAL OFF-THE-SHELF AIRBORNE ELECTRONIC HARDWARE ISSUES AND September 2017 EMERGING SOLUTIONS: AUTHORIZATION FOR EXPENDITURE NO. 75 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Condra, Lloyd1, Horan, Gary2, Forsberg, Håkan3, Matthews, Dave4, Peterson, James5, Martin, Avelino6, Barbagelata, Serge6, Lillestolen, Kirk7, Redman, Dave8, Petre, Brian9, Kilgore, Charles10, Strasburger, John11, Manners, Robert12, and Gregory, Bob13 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) 1Boeing 2Federal Aviation Administration 3Saab PO Box 3707 E&PD Standards Staff, Engine SE-58188 Linkoping Seattle, WA 98124-2207 Controls Sweden 11. Contract or Grant No. Burlington, MA 01803 4Rockwell Collins 5Honeywell Aerospace 6Airbus Group 400 Collins Road NE 9201 San Mateo Blvd, NE, 12 Rue Pasteur, BP76 Cedar Rapids, IA 52498 MS C01 92150 Suresnes Albuquerque, NM 87113 France 7UTC Aerospace Systems 8Texas A&M Engineering 9GE Aviation Systems 1 Hamilton Road Experiment Station 3290 Patterson Ave, SE Windsor Locks, CT 06096 3126 TAMU Grand Rapids, MI 49512 College Station, TX 77843-3126 10Federal Aviation Administration 11Federal Aviation Administration 12Hi-Tec Systems, Inc. Software and Electronics Section Systems Integration Section (FAA contractor) Atlantic City Int’l. Airport, NJ 08405 Fort Worth, TX 76137 6727 Delilah Road Egg Harbor Township, NJ 08234 13Rolls-Royce plc P.O. Box 2000, Raynesway, Derby, DE21 7XX England 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration Aircraft Certification Service—Design, Manufacturing, and Airworthiness Final Report FAA National Headquarters 14. Sponsoring Agency Code AIR-134 950 L’Enfant Plaza, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20024 15. Supplementary Notes The FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center Aviation Research Division COR was Charles Kilgore. 16. Abstract This report, based on global industry and regulatory expert experience and knowledge, illustrates only the top level of elemental aspects regarding commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) components embedded in airborne electronic hardware (AEH) issues and provides possibilities for COTS AEH solutions development including: 1) the use of existing standards and guidance documents as a structure for future evolution of COTS standards, 2) possible future COTS standards to implement this structure, 3) the need for combined industry/regulatory/manufacturing research to develop COTS AEH issues mitigations, including the development of COTS standards and guidance, 4) mechanisms to shorten the slow evolution of standards, 5) a candidate structure for relevant and emerging COTS standards linked to evolving development assurance standards, and 6) the identification of standard bodies responsible for the implementation of the ongoing COTS solution(s). This report provides a COTS AEH assurance framework, including a common structured approach to evaluate COTS AEH issues. This approach is applied to the 22 issues addressed in the report and is recommended for application to future issues not addressed herein. The approach is presented in a manner that supports development of project-level COTS AEH mitigations that can be rolled into development, design assurance, and a practical compliance solution for FAA engineers, delegates, and standards administrators. There is a stand-alone treatment of each issue and a five-step suggested evolution of COTS and development assurance standards and guidelines. The research (1) includes detailed technical information about the issues, (2) introduces research required to provide new knowledge needed to implement solutions for the COTS AEH issues, (3) explores required tools, standards, and guidance needed for COTS-based systems development assurance, certification, and maintenance, and (4) considers certification-process and assessment criteria as well as methods for the given issues. The approach may be used to evaluate and develop emerging COTS AEH issues. This report also addresses design, component selection, development assurance, and certification-process issues for AEH COTS electronics product items, such as hybrids, multichip modules, microprocessors, field-programmable gate arrays, application-specific integrated circuits, and small assemblies including printed wiring assemblies and disk drives. All organizations and individuals who work with COTS AEH in avionics are encouraged to read and understand this report — and those who address these COTS AEH issues should use the AFE 75 research approach and results described. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement Commercial off-the-shelf, COTS, Airborne electronic hardware, Avionics, Aircraft certification, This document is available to the U.S. public Regulatory standards and guidance, System qualification, Avionics safety, Hybrids, Multichip through the National Technical Information modules, Microprocessors, Field programmable gate arrays, Application-specific integrated Service (NTIS), Springfield, Virginia 22161. circuits, COTS assemblies, Derating, Uprating, Sparing reliability, Complementary metal-oxide This document is also available from the FAA semiconductor, Single event effects, Atmospheric radiation, Limited-life semiconductors, Reliability, Lead-free electronics, Errata, Counterfeit parts, Undocumented features, Usage, William J. Hughes Technical Center at Production, Unknown changes, Embedded controllers, Packaging and mounting, Obsolescence actlibrary.tc.faa.gov. management, Compliance, Design assurance, System on chip 19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified 152 Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The project management committee (PMC) chairman for this commercial off-the-shelf airborne electronic hardware assurance project, Brian Petre, would like to thank the following people for their direct contributions to the research detailed in this report and persistent efforts throughout the course of this project: Serge Barbagelata, Airbus Group Andrew Berner, BAE Systems Lloyd Condra, The Boeing Company Chris Eckert, GE Aviation Håkan Forsberg, SAAB Bob Gregory, Rolls Royce Dan Higgins, BF Goodrich Gary Horan, FAA Charles Kilgore, FAA Kirk Lillestolen, UTC Bob Manners, Hi-Tec Systems, FAA contractor Avelino Martin, Airbus Group Dave Mathews, Rockwell Collins James Peterson, Honeywell William Scofield, Boeing Ingemar Söderquist, SAAB John Strasburger, FAA The PMC chairman would also like to acknowledge the following individuals and organizations for providing support to the project: Bob Chobot, BAE Systems Chantel Gil, Airbus Group/Eurocopter Barbara Lingberg, FAA Dave Redman, AVSI Director Jordan Smith, Texas A&M University iii TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xvii 1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Principles 1 1.2 Scope 2 1.3 AFE 75 Project Structure 2 1.4 Document Structure 3 1.5 COTS AEH Assurance Objective 4 1.6 COTS AEH Issues 4 2. ISSUE DEFINITIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5 2.1 COTS Assemblies 6 2.1.1 Description of the Issue 6 2.1.2 Relationship to Safety and Certification 7 2.1.3 Existing Activity 7 2.1.4 Technology Weakness/Deficiency 8 2.1.5 Process Weakness/Deficiency 8 2.1.6 Recommendations/Desired Outcome 8 2.1.7 References 9 2.1.8 Acronyms 10 2.2 Derating 10 2.2.1 Description of the Issue 10 2.2.2 Relationship to Safety and Certification 10 2.2.3 Existing Activity 11 2.2.4 Technology Weakness/Deficiency 11 2.2.5 Process Weakness/Deficiency 12 2.2.6 Recommendation/Desired Outcome 12 2.2.7 References 14 2.2.8 Abbreviations and Acronyms 14 2.3 Sparing Reliability 16 2.3.1 Description of the Issue 16 2.3.2 Relationship to Safety and Certification 16 2.3.3 Existing Activity 17 2.3.4 Technology Weakness/Deficiency 18 2.3.5 Process
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Digital Thread: Reducing Electrical Systems Program Risk in the Aerospace Industry
    Siemens Digital Industries Software The digital thread: Reducing electrical systems program risk in the aerospace industry Executive summary As we enter a new era in aerospace development, it’s becoming abundantly clear how digital technologies such as the digital twin and digital thread are helping OEMs revolutionize how things are done across the entire product life cycle. This paper explores the many challenges aerospace OEMs and suppliers face today and how the model-based enterprise (MBE) lowers system program risk and delivers new avenues of innovation in electrical and electronic content platforms. siemens.com/electrical-systems White paper | The digital thread: Reducing electrical systems program risk in the aerospace industry Contents Introduction ............................................................. 3 Platforms are becoming more electrical .................. 4 Increased complexity means greater potential for failure ................................................................. 5 The industry is ready for an historic disruption ............................................... 6 The emergence of the digital twin and the digital thread .............................................. 7 The digital twin of product, production and performance ..................................................... 8 Capital: The electrical digital twin and digital thread .................................................... 9 De-risking key integration milestones: How Capital is helping today ................................. 11 Conclusion ............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Portable Stimulus: What's Coming in 1.1
    Portable Stimulus: What’s Coming in 1.1 and What it Means For You Portable Stimulus Working Group PSS 1.1 Tutorial Agenda • What is PSS Introduction • Tom Fitzpatrick, • Abstract DMA model in PSS 1.0 Mentor, a Siemens Business Memory • The problem • Prabhat Gupta, AMD Allocation • New PSS concepts Higher-Level • The problem • Matan Vax, Scenarios • New constructs Cadence Design Systems • The problem • Karthick Gururaj, HSI Realization • New concepts and constructs Vayavya Labs System-Level • Portability • Hillel Miller, Synopsys Usage • Complex scenarios • Summary Special Thanks to: Conclusion • What’s next Dave Kelf, Breker Verification Systems Josh Rensch, Semifore 2 The Need for Verification Abstraction Test content authoring represents major proportion of development SIMULATION Disconnected cross-process methods Test Content • Block EMULATION • UVM tests laborious, error-prone • SoC FPGA PROTO • Hard to hit corner-cases with C tests • Post-Silicon • Disconnected diagnostic creation IP BLOCK SUBSYSTEM FULL SYSTEM Test portability, reuse, scaling, maintenance all problematic 3 Key Aspects of Portable Stimulus Capture pure Partial scenario Composable Formal Automated test Target multiple test intent description scenarios representation generation platforms of test space Separate test intent from implementation High-coverage test generation across the verification process with much less effort 4 PSS Improves Individual Verification Phases IP BLOCK SUB-SYSTEM FULL SYSTEM Create block-level (UVM) tests & Easily model system-level Generate
    [Show full text]
  • Arm Cortex-M System Design Kit Technical Reference Manual
    Arm® Cortex®-M System Design Kit Revision: r1p1 Technical Reference Manual Copyright © 2011, 2013, 2017 Arm Limited (or its affiliates). All rights reserved. ARM DDI 0479D (ID110617) Arm Cortex-M System Design Kit Technical Reference Manual Copyright © 2011, 2013, 2017 Arm Limited (or its affiliates). All rights reserved. Release Information The following changes have been made to this document: Change history Date Issue Confidentiality Change 14 March 2011 A Non-Confidential First release for r0p0 16 June 2011 B Non-Confidential Second release for r0p0 19 April 2013 C Non-Confidential First release for r1p0 31 October 2017 D Non-Confidential First release for r1p1 Proprietary Notice This document is protected by copyright and other related rights and the practice or implementation of the information contained in this document may be protected by one or more patents or pending patent applications. No part of this document may be reproduced in any form by any means without the express prior written permission of Arm. No license, express or implied, by estoppel or otherwise to any intellectual property rights is granted by this document unless specifically stated. Your access to the information in this document is conditional upon your acceptance that you will not use or permit others to use the information for the purposes of determining whether implementations infringe any third party patents. THIS DOCUMENT IS PROVIDED “AS IS”. ARM PROVIDES NO REPRESENTATIONS AND NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, SATISFACTORY QUALITY, NON-INFRINGEMENT OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE WITH RESPECT TO THE DOCUMENT.
    [Show full text]
  • Workshop on Post-Silicon Debug: Technologies, Methodologies, and Best Practices
    Wisam Kadry – IBM Research, Haifa 7 June 2012 Workshop on Post-silicon Debug: Technologies, Methodologies, and Best Practices © 2012 IBM Corporation DAC 2012, Post-silicon Debug Workshop Thanks to Mr. Amir Nahir IBM Research – Haifa, Israel Received his BSc in computer science from Technion, IIT in 2005, and is currently pursuing his PhD there. He has been a research staff member at the IBM Research Labs in Haifa since 2006, and has spent most of his time leading the development of Threadmill – a post-silicon functional validation exerciser. Since the beginning of 2011, Amir manages the Post-Silicon Validation and Design Automation Group 2 © 2012 IBM Corporation DAC 2012, Post-silicon Debug Workshop Agenda Session I (09:00-10:30) Wisam Kadry - IBM Haifa Research Lab., Haifa, Israel Kevin Reick - IBM Corp., Austin, TX Subhasish Mitra - Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA David Erikson - Advanced Micro Devices, Fort Collins, CO Bradley Quinton - Tektronix, Inc., Vancouver, BC, Canada Break (10:30-11:00) Session II (11:00-12:30) Alan Hu - Univ. of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada Keshavan Tiruvallur - Intel Corp., Portland, OR Nagib Hakim - Intel Corp., Santa Clara, CA Valeria Bertacco - Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI Sharad Kumar - Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., Noida, India Lunch (12:30-13:30) Panel (13:30-15:00) Moderator: Harry Foster - Mentor Graphics Corp., Plano, TX 3 © 2012 IBM Corporation DAC 2012, Post-silicon Debug Workshop More complex chips 4 © 2012 IBM Corporation DAC 2012, Post-silicon Debug Workshop Observe 5 © 2012 IBM
    [Show full text]
  • Aerospace & Defense Manufacturing in Tijuana and Mexico
    2016 Aerospace & Defense Manufacturing in Tijuana and Mexico Advantages of Nearshoring in Mexico, Key Highlights and 2016 Industry Overview WHITE PAPER By Co-Production International, Inc. 05/29/2016 Co-Production International www.co-production.net May 2016 WHY ARE SECTION 1 AEROSPACE Mexico: Hub for Aerospace & Defense Manufacturing MANUFACTURERS Mexico grew from third in 2012 and is now ranked first for lowest business costs according to the annual KPMG EXPANDING TO Competitive Alternatives: Guide to International Business Location Costs 2016.1 Valued at $7 billion in 2014, Mexico’s aerospace and defense exports highlight a significant market MEXICO? 17 trend for country’s rapidly growing industries. Mexico has rapidly become a top global destination Mexico is home to more than 289 aerospace manufacturing for aerospace and defense manufacturing. The entire facilities and a 34,000 strong, highly-skilled direct industry California and Baja California is known as the “Aerospace workforce. The state of Baja California, especially the border Megaregion,” with the global manufacturing hub of Tijuana region, has become a growing global center for the industry boasting an over 50 year-old history in aerospace and now attracts the largest share of companies in all of manufacturing activities.2 Executives and trade Mexico. organizations cite major cost savings and ease of doing business benefits in Mexico, including: From temporary imports for assembly to full production operations and special processing, Baja California is known • Low-Cost,
    [Show full text]
  • Aerospace Manufacturing a Growth Leader in Georgia
    Aerospace Manufacturing A Growth Leader in Georgia In this study: 9. Research Universities 10. GTRI and GTMI 1. Industry Snapshot 11. High-Tech Talent 3. A Top Growth Leader 12. Centers of Innovation 4. Industry Mix 13. World-Class Training Programs 6. Industry Wages and Occupational 15. Strong Partnerships and Ready Workforce Employment 16. Transportation Infrastructure 7. Pro-Business State 17. Powering Your Manufacturing Facility Community and Economic Development 8. Unionization 18. Aerospace Companies Aerospace Manufacturing A Growth Leader in Georgia Aerospace is defined as Aerospace Products and Parts Manufacturing as well as Other Support Activities for Air Transportation. Aerospace Georgia is the ideal home for aerospace include Pratt & Whitney’s expansion in companies with ¨¦§75 ¨¦§575 25+ employees companies. With the world’s most traveled Columbus in both 2016 and 2017, Meggitt «¬400 ¨¦§85 ¨¦§985 airport, eight regional airports, prominent Polymers & Composites’ expansion in military bases and accessibility to the Rockmart and MSB Group’s location in ¨¦§20 ¨¦§20 country’s fastest-growing major port, Savannah. For a complete list of new major ¨¦§85 Georgia’s aerospace industry serves a locations and expansions, see page 2. ¨¦§185 global marketplace. Georgia is also home to a highly-skilled workforce and world- ¨¦§16 Why Georgia for Aerospace? class technical expertise geared toward promoting the success of the aerospace • Highly skilled workers ¨¦§75 ¨¦§95 industry. Georgia’s business climate is • World-class technical expertise consistently ranked as one of the best • Renowned workforce training program in the country, with a business-friendly tax code and incentives that encourage • Increasing number of defense manufacturing growth for existing and personnel newly arriving companies.
    [Show full text]
  • Washington Aerospace Economic Impacts 2018 Update
    Washington Aerospace Economic Impacts 2018 Update December 2018 Prepared for: Prepared by: Community Attributes Inc. tells data-rich stories about communities that are important to decision makers. President & CEO Chris Mefford Project Manager Spencer Cohen, PhD Analysts Doudou Feng Madalina Calen Carrie Schaden Community Attributes Inc. 1411 Fourth Ave, Suite 1401 Seattle, Washington 98101 www.communityattributes.com This page was intentionally left blank. C ONTENT S Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 Summary of Findings ...................................................................................................... 1 Methods and Data ........................................................................................................... 2 Direct Activities in Washington State ............................................................................. 3 Employment, Occupations, and Establishments .......................................................... 3 Wages ........................................................................................................................... 6 Business Revenues ....................................................................................................... 8 Economic and Fiscal Impacts ..................................................................................... 10 Aerospace Across the State ..........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Reach for the Skies: a Strategic Vision for UK Aerospace
    Reach for the skies A Strategic Vision for UK Aerospace The Aerospace Growth Partnership Industry and Government working together to secure the future for UK aerospace Industry and Government working together to secure the future for UK aerospace Prime Minister’s Foreword BritaiN HAS A PROUD RECORD OF AEROspaCE ACHIEVEMENTS, from the invention of the jet engine to making the wings on the largest commercial aircraft in service today. Our industry is the largest in Europe; a direct employer of more than 100,000 people; and a powerhouse in the UK economy, with a turnover of more than £20 billion a year. It is, quite simply, a phenomenal success story. But there must be no complacency. The huge potential in the global market – for trillions of pounds worth of new orders in less than twenty years – means that competitors around the world are investing and preparing the ground today. Britain must show the same foresight. That’s what the Aerospace Growth Partnership is all about. We heard from industry that you wanted long-term commitment from government, without long-term hassle and interference. So the partnership was born; a chance for those in Whitehall to work with those in business to tackle the challenges facing UK aerospace. The group has been looking at what technologies, skills and supply chain changes we need to make – not just to retain our position in the market but to build on it. This report is just the start. We will return with a fuller strategy at the end of year – and beyond that, we are determined to work hand-in-glove with industry to keep UK aerospace flying high.
    [Show full text]
  • Probatch Leadership Kit Automating the Kitting Process in the Aerospace Industry
    ProBatch Leadership Kit Automating the Kitting Process in the Aerospace Industry Table of Contents I. Situation Analysis II. Application Basics III. Graco Solution IV. Return on Investment for Aerospace Customer V. Application Benefits VI. Ordering Information and Prices VII. Other Potential Kitting Customers Automating the Kitting Process in the Aerospace Industry I. Situation Analysis Companies that paint with less than 25 gallons per day and use multiple colors generally use kitting in their operation. Even though kitting is relatively easy there is a tremendous cost associated to this method of mixing paints. Companies pay a premium to have the luxury of mixing kits instead of doing the mixing themselves. Kits consist of two (2K) or three (3K) components that are purchased in separate cans and mixed together. The benefit is that the proportion of each material is correct, which reduces errors in mix ratios, but the user lacks the flexibility in how much is mixed. For instance, if a touch up job requires one pint of paint, the combination of three components may yield a total of 1.25 gallons or the waste of one gallon of kitted paint. The main components of kits consist of the following materials. 1. resin 2. catalyst 3. solvent For the purpose of this application leadership kit, the aerospace industry will include aerospace manufacturers, aerospace feeders and military bases. The aerospace industry offers the greatest opportunities for the ProBatch system because it is an industry that requires many small amounts of a very expensive paint and is accustomed to using kits. It is not uncommon for an aerospace manufacturer to waste up to 25% of their paint.
    [Show full text]
  • UPF 1.0, UPF 2.0, UPF 2.1, UPF 3.0, and Now UPF 3.1: the Big Q “Which Is the Right Standard for My Design”?
    UPF 1.0, UPF 2.0, UPF 2.1, UPF 3.0, and now UPF 3.1: The big Q “Which is the Right Standard for My Design”? Madhur Bhargava, Mentor, A Siemens Business ([email protected]) 1 Agenda • Introduction • Evolution of UPF • Challenges in Migration • Backward Compatibility • What’s new in UPF 3.1 • Semantic difference b/w standards • UPF design Guidelines • Conclusion 2 Introduction • Power Management & Verification Complexity – Complex & energy aware chips – Maximize battery life – Requiring sophisticated power management • Power Gating, Multi Voltage, DVFS, Biasing • Affect design functionality • IPs using own power management posing integration challenges – Need for power verification • HDL not equipped, Power formats share burden • Unified Power Format – Define power management – Based on Tcl – Provide HDL Interface – Information Model to capture processed data 3 Evolution of UPF • UPF 1.0 was defined by Accellera • UPF 3.0 – Focused on adding power intent to HDL – Several new capabilities added – Relatively simple concepts and commands – Updated existing concepts, viz. power • UPF 2.0 defined by IEEE states – Backward compatible with UPF 1.0 • UPF 3.1 – latest standard – Supports IP development, refinement – New commands for simulation control • UPF 2.1 – Clarification of semantics – Clarifies and enhances UPF 2.0 features – Adds a few new capabilities UPF 3.1 UPF 3.0 UPF 2.1 UPF UPF 2.0 1.0 4 New Challenges • Five UPF standards – Compatibility, Differences & Migration challenges • Starting a new design: Which UPF version to choose
    [Show full text]
  • Ieee 1076-2008 Vhdl-200X
    IEEE 1076-2008 VHDL-200X By Jim Lewis, SynthWorks VHDL Training [email protected] SynthWorks IEEE 1076-2008 O IEEE VASG - VHDL-200X effort O Started in 2003 and made good technical progress O However, no $$$ for LRM editing O Accellera VHDL TSC O Took over in Fall 2005, O Prioritized IEEE proposals, O Finalized LRM text, O Completed Accellera standard in July 2006 O Vendors implemented some features and provided feedback O In Spring 2008, Accellera forwarded standard to IEEE VASG for IEEE standardization. * VHDL-2008 * Approved in September by IEEE REVCOM 2 Copyright © SynthWorks 2008 SynthWorks IEEE 1076-2008 O Biggest Language change since 1076-1993 O PSL O Expressions in port maps O IP Protection via Encryption O Read out ports O VHDL Procedural Interface - VHPI O Conditional and Selected O Type Generics assignment in sequential code O Generics on Packages O hwrite, owrite, … hread, oread O Arrays with unconstrained arrays O to_string, to_hstring, … O Records with unconstrained arrays O Sized bit string literals O Fixed Point Packages O Unary Reduction Operators O Floating Point Packages O Array/Scalar Logic Operators O Hierarchical references of signals O Slices in array aggregates O Process(all) O Stop and Finish O Simplified Case Statements O Context Declarations O Don't Care in a Case Statement O Std_logic_1164 Updates O Conditional Expression Updates O Numeric_Std Updates O Numeric_Std_Unsigned 3 Copyright © SynthWorks 2008 SynthWorks VHDL-2008 Big Ticket Items PSL O PSL has been incorporated directly into VHDL O Vunit, Vmode,
    [Show full text]
  • IEEE SA/Accellera Partnership
    Corporate Program Case Study IEEE-SA/Accellera Partnership Relationship Between the IEEE-SA Corporate Program and Accellera Helps Design Automation Technology Gain Reach and Recognition Since 2000, Accellera, a consortium of companies in the electronic design automation field, has been developing and promoting use of design and verification specifications for semiconductors, systems, and design-tool companies. Ten of those documents have been finalized and issued in collaboration with the IEEE Standards Association (IEEE-SA) as IEEE standards. “Working with IEEE-SA brings these standards world-wide recognition and reach,” says Yatin Trivedi, Accellera’s treasurer and a long-time member of its board of directors. “IEEE-SA is recognized globally as a leading standards-development organization for a broad range of technical areas. Standards approved or ratified by IEEE are considered ‘good for you’ without question. Accellera has a good reputation, but not on the same scale as IEEE or IEEE-SA. IEEE-SA has a vast, international member base, as well as relationships with organizations such as IEC and other international and national standards bodies. These factors make IEEE standards based on Accellera documents acceptable to a broad, world-wide audience.” “And people know and expect that IEEE’s standards development process is rigorous, open, fair, peer-reviewed, and comprehensive,” adds Trivedi. The material that organizations like Accellera submit is viewed as a strong starting contribution to an IEEE entity standards working group (WG). Industry organizations submit specifications to IEEE with the full understanding that they’ll no longer have the control they once had over the document’s content--but the standards that result are more useful.
    [Show full text]