<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Open Source VHDL Verification Methodology | Torsten | Activity</title>
	<link>https://osvvm.org/members/goodcleanfun/activity</link>
	<atom:link href="https://osvvm.org/members/goodcleanfun/activity/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<description>Activity feed for Torsten.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2026 09:13:27 +0100</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>https://buddypress.org/?v=</generator>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<ttl>30</ttl>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>2</sy:updateFrequency>
	
						<item>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">69911c099134ca78914f7055ef74884d</guid>
				<title>Torsten&#039;s profile was updated</title>
				<link>https://osvvm.org/activity/p/8829</link>
				<pubDate>Mon, 31 Oct 2022 21:14:57 +0000</pubDate>

				
									<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
				
							</item>
					<item>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">5365b285890a76a8fe7f9e6a7f73cf25</guid>
				<title>Torsten posted a new activity comment</title>
				<link>https://osvvm.org/archives/2055#comment-1674</link>
				<pubDate>Fri, 28 Oct 2022 14:06:02 +0100</pubDate>

									<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ha, very nice.</p>
<p>In my current system test bench of a AXI-QDMA Interface I model memory using my own dictionary implementation. First I used plain `std_logic_vector`, but it became slower &amp; slower with increasing writes to new addresses in the dict. Then I&#8217;ve remembered that integers are &#8220;faster&#8221; than values with 9-state logic. So I&#8217;ve done&hellip;<span class="activity-read-more" id="activity-read-more-8781"><a href="https://osvvm.org/archives/2055#comment-1674" rel="nofollow ugc">[Read more]</a></span></p>
				<strong>In reply to</strong> -
				<a href="https://osvvm.org/members/jiml" rel="nofollow ugc">Jim Lewis</a> wrote a new post 

Summary of recent changes in OSVVM:

 	Scripts updated for better signaling to continuous integration (CI) tools
 	MemoryPkg updated to remove 31 bit limitation and support storage [&hellip;]			]]></content:encoded>
				
				
							</item>
					<item>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">69af5b78fb0b28fb979531591d91cce2</guid>
				<title>Torsten posted a new activity comment</title>
				<link>https://osvvm.org/archives/1879#comment-1671</link>
				<pubDate>Thu, 18 Nov 2021 17:11:10 +0000</pubDate>

									<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The new reports lets me finally ditch an internal branch with XML-based reports which I created some years ago. I&#8217;m very happy that OSVVM has added such an feature finally. I will test it soon with some of our test benches ?</p>
				<strong>In reply to</strong> -
				<a href="https://osvvm.org/members/jiml" rel="nofollow ugc">Jim Lewis</a> wrote a new post When we run a set of tests, we need to be able to assess whether all test cases passed or quickly identify which test cases failed.  This is the purpose of the OSVVM 2021.10 Build Summary [&hellip;]			]]></content:encoded>
				
				
							</item>
					<item>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">658c1730a17b30c6f4933287c8722fcd</guid>
				<title>Torsten posted a new activity comment</title>
				<link>https://osvvm.org/archives/1745#comment-1670</link>
				<pubDate>Tue, 08 Dec 2020 21:06:31 +0000</pubDate>

									<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One of the main things what OSVVM models differentiate from other available solutions is the extensive documentation. I like that very much.</p>
<p>I remember closed source models which only have very little documentation and second, were written very poor. I used an FPGA-vendors eMMC model some years ago which was created in addition to the MMC&hellip;<span class="activity-read-more" id="activity-read-more-6335"><a href="https://osvvm.org/archives/1745#comment-1670" rel="nofollow ugc">[Read more]</a></span></p>
				<strong>In reply to</strong> -
				<a href="https://osvvm.org/members/jiml" rel="nofollow ugc">Jim Lewis</a> wrote a new post 

The OSVVM 2020.10 release is finally out.
Why 2020.10? 
Yes I realize it is now late November. So why 2020.10? In late October, the code was done and marked as 2020.10 with the [&hellip;]			]]></content:encoded>
				
				
							</item>
					<item>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">56b72feea3e8886685e3384dfc095263</guid>
				<title>Torsten replied to the topic Random seed problem in the forum OSVVM</title>
				<link>https://osvvm.wpengine.com/forums/topic/random-seed-problem/#post-1427</link>
				<pubDate>Fri, 26 Jan 2018 19:20:12 +0000</pubDate>

									<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks, I get far better results with your workaround. If we change the seed function, we could look what kind of hash functions are used for dictionary types in languages like python. I assume, they use functions which are not cryptographic secure, but have a good uniform distribution and are very fast.&nbsp;But you are right, with such a change, the&hellip;<span class="activity-read-more" id="activity-read-more-5099"><a href="https://osvvm.wpengine.com/forums/topic/random-seed-problem/#post-1427" rel="nofollow ugc">[Read more]</a></span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
				
									<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
				
							</item>
		
	</channel>
</rss>