On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 14:01:48 -0500
Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Reimar Döffinger wrote:
> > The free tools only work with really tiny FPGAs, you can not select the
> > bigger ones.
>
> When I commented on the original article, I only wanted to correct what
> I saw as a couple of factual errors. Thanks to both of you who pointed
> out the limited device support in the free tools.
>
> Is this Linux-specific? Or Xilinx-specific? If the answer is no on
> both counts, the restricted device support seems to me like an
> orthogonal issue. My understanding of the facts is that Xilinx tools
> for Linux are available for free in the same sense that
> Xilinx/Altera/Lattice tools are available for Windows for free. No
> Wine, no FlexLM... just pure lin32 & lin64 binaries.
AFAIK it's the same for Win and Linux versions. Probably a way
to keep people buying the expensive comercial tools.
> > Another point, though I do not know if this is maybe the "industry
> > standard" is that I find the Xilinx tools, at least ISE/Xst just not
> > suitable for serious use.
Welcome to the world of hardware synthesis.
I've used the Xilinx tools at work and Synplify for my master
thesis, and i can tell you, even though i'm used to unintuitive
and broken software like gcc or sun cc, both were more horrible
than any broken shit i've used in my life. But that's my personal
opinion.
> I understand that it's frustrating at times -- it's definitely not GCC
> :) -- but as long as one approaches it as a new tool with a learning
> curve, I believe it's perfectly manageable.
Unless you are a few weeks before a dead line and fight with the
bug of the week every time you change something small.
And using gcc for comparison is like using a worm-eaten apple
to tell people that a rotten apple isn't that bad.
gcc is considered by too many people as 1) broken 2) too complex to fix
3) having undecipherable error messages and 4) producing bad code
more often than not. It's only being used because there is nothing
better. And i'm always astonished when i talk with VLSI/FPGA guys, that
they can cope with the brokenness of their tools which are by far
worse than gcc, especially considering what Synplicity and Mentor
Graphics ask for their tools[1].
Oh.. yes, not forget:
Disclaimer:
These are soley my opinions and views on how things are and have
nothing to do with OGP, OHF, Traversal or any other entity related
to this mailinglist.
Attila Kinali
[1] for those who don't know, it would be a few months saleries of a
not badly paid engineer working in switzerland to buy one of the limited
versions of these tools.
--
Linux ist... wenn man einfache Dinge auch mit einer kryptischen
post-fix Sprache loesen kann
-- Daniel Hottinger
_______________________________________________
Open-graphics mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics
List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
