[ warning: getting a bit off topic ] > > > 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.
It has been 15 or 20 years since I've found a bug in gcc. (not counting desiring improvements to the error/warning messages, and the arch support problem) > > 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. You left out the biggie: gcc is dropping arches. :-( > It's only being used because there is nothing better. Depending on what arch you are targeting there may be a proprietary compiler than generates better code, at least for some cases. Due to gcc dropping arch support, some people are looking into alternatives, like pcc. I would think that forking an earlier version of gcc would be a possibility, but I don't know if anyone is considering that. Back when gcc came out, twenty-something years ago, it was an improvement. When your CPU is only 0.6 MIPS, anything that made the code run faster was very welcome indeed. I haven't followed it closely, but apparently there were personell changes that have lead to the current situation. > 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]. What choice do they have? You do the best you can with the tools you have. Someone should write a FLOSS alternative. Unfortunately that is more than an easy Saturday afternoon project. There is lots of software that is buggier than gcc: firefox, ffmpeg, linux, xpdf, ... _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
