FPGA Central - World's 1st FPGA / CPLD Portal

FPGA Central

World's 1st FPGA Portal

 

Go Back   FPGA Groups > NewsGroup > Verilog

Verilog comp.lang.verilog newsgroup / usenet

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 01-19-2005, 10:57 PM
Eric Peterson
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default protect/endprotect & verilog 2001

Hi,
Is there a way to use the protect/endprotect encryption on verilog
2001 code? I'm currently using Verilog-XL for encryption, and it
barfs on the various new constructs.

Regards,
Eric
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 01-20-2005, 09:25 AM
mk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: protect/endprotect & verilog 2001

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:57:15 GMT, Eric Peterson
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Hi,
> Is there a way to use the protect/endprotect encryption on verilog
> 2001 code? I'm currently using Verilog-XL for encryption, and it
> barfs on the various new constructs.
>
>Regards,
>Eric


Which version of XL are you using ? With 5.1, I have no trouble
encrypting rtl with signed (signed wires, register and $signed)
feature but I don't know whether other 2001 features are also
supported.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 01-20-2005, 05:33 PM
Eric Peterson
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: protect/endprotect & verilog 2001

On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:25:03 +0000, mk wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:57:15 GMT, Eric Peterson
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Hi,
>> Is there a way to use the protect/endprotect encryption on verilog
>> 2001 code? I'm currently using Verilog-XL for encryption, and it
>> barfs on the various new constructs.

>
> Which version of XL are you using ? With 5.1, I have no trouble
> encrypting rtl with signed (signed wires, register and $signed) feature
> but I don't know whether other 2001 features are also supported.


I'm using verilog-xl version 5.00. Currently it has problems with
`ifndef statements, but I suspect as more 2001 functionality gets put
into NC, I'm looking to the future as to what I should be using.

The Model Packager seems to require compilation of the source, which
makes it difficult for me as I would like to give customers the option
of setting verilog parameters (which is done at compile time).

Eric
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 01-20-2005, 07:43 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: protect/endprotect & verilog 2001


mk wrote:
>
> Which version of XL are you using ? With 5.1, I have no trouble
> encrypting rtl with signed (signed wires, register and $signed)
> feature but I don't know whether other 2001 features are also
> supported.


Those aren't the best examples, since Verilog-XL actually
supports signed arithmetic. In fact, Verilog-2001 signed
arithmetic was based on the implementation in XL, rather
than the other way around.

However, most Verilog-2001 constructs should encrypt just
fine. The exceptions would be new compiler directives,
since XL expects to recognize those during encryption.
The rest of the new tokens look like some old token to
XL, so it can encrypt them.

Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 01-22-2005, 06:18 PM
Ira Baxter
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: protect/endprotect & verilog 2001


"Eric Peterson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:25:03 +0000, mk wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:57:15 GMT, Eric Peterson
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>Hi,
> >> Is there a way to use the protect/endprotect encryption on verilog
> >> 2001 code? I'm currently using Verilog-XL for encryption, and it
> >> barfs on the various new constructs.

> >
> > Which version of XL are you using ? With 5.1, I have no trouble
> > encrypting rtl with signed (signed wires, register and $signed) feature
> > but I don't know whether other 2001 features are also supported.

>
> I'm using verilog-xl version 5.00. Currently it has problems with
> `ifndef statements, but I suspect as more 2001 functionality gets put
> into NC, I'm looking to the future as to what I should be using.
>
> The Model Packager seems to require compilation of the source, which
> makes it difficult for me as I would like to give customers the option
> of setting verilog parameters (which is done at compile time).


You might consider using an obfuscator, instead.
Our obfuscator can scramble the symbol names, but
preserves *all* Verilog 2001 constructs.
You can also tell it to preserve vendor-specific synthesis
comments.

See
http://www.semanticdesigns.com/Produ...bfuscator.html

--
Ira D. Baxter, Ph.D., CTO 512-250-1018
Semantic Designs, Inc. www.semdesigns.com


Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 01-28-2005, 03:41 AM
Eric Peterson
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: protect/endprotect & verilog 2001 (followup)

My own followup - thanks to those that reponded...

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 22:57:15 +0000, I wrote:

> Is there a way to use the protect/endprotect encryption on verilog
> 2001 code? I'm currently using Verilog-XL for encryption, and it
> barfs on the various new constructs.


According to Cadence support, if I upgrade to NC 5.1, there is a utility
called 'ncprotect' that should allow me to protect code that contains
verilog 2001 constructs. It has a slightly different syntax (I can't
figure out why...)

// pragma protect /* indicates that this file has protect statements */
// pragma protect begin
code to be protected here
// pragma protect end

FYI...

Thanks again,
Eric

Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 02-01-2005, 05:08 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: protect/endprotect & verilog 2001 (followup)

Does DC support verilog-2001?

Does NC support systemverilog?

Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 02-02-2005, 12:20 AM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: protect/endprotect & verilog 2001 (followup)

Eric asked why the syntax for ncprotect differs from the old `protect
directive.

The `protect directive uses a company-proprietary encryption algorithm.
The encrypted code can only be simulated on Cadence simulators. Other
vendors may provide their own encryption that their tools can decrypt,
but these won't work across different vendors either. These algorithms
can't be made public, or anyone could decrypt the supposedly protected
code.

I believe that the alternate format used by ncprotect is part of an
effort to
allow encryption that can be read by multiple vendors' tools. The
approach
uses standard encryption algorithms with keys selected by the IP
vendor.
The keys are provided to all trusted tool vendors. Alternately, they
can be
put into the encrypted code, in key blocks for each supported vendor,
encrypted with public keys provided by each vendor. This scheme
requires
a syntax that can provide extra information for encryption and
decryption.

Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Verilog 2001 support Shubhankar Verilog 4 01-17-2005 01:00 PM
0-padding in verilog 2001 Jason Zheng Verilog 4 11-26-2004 08:15 PM
Verilog 2001 extensions Hung Truong Verilog 1 05-15-2004 01:33 AM
Re: Verilog-2001 parameter declarations VhdlCohen Verilog 0 08-22-2003 12:46 AM
Re: Verilog-2001 parameter declarations VhdlCohen Verilog 0 07-29-2003 06:36 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0
Copyright 2008 @ FPGA Central. All rights reserved