Hi all
The real problem here is that we have no control over System Generator
or ISE/EDK and what FPGAs/features get supported in any release. It would
also be nice to be vendor agnostic and be able to swap from Xilinx to
something else if necessary.
Tools (that we had control over) that could ge
Hi all,
For the reasons Andrew mentioned, I think a split in the library
should happen as late as possible. While everyone means well, I'm
dubious that bugs and features would be "back applied" to older
versions.
In my experience using mlib_devel_10_1 with both 10.1 and 11.? on
Windows and Linux r
Hi, Andrew and John,
On May 19, 2010, at 0:02 , Andrew Martens wrote:
It may be time to copy our libraries to an mlib_devel_11_1 revision
and continue from there. ROACH2 uses Virtex6 and the 10.x and
earlier tools do not support it. Disadvantages are that a lot of
library maintainers will
> Hi Dave
>
> It may be time to copy our libraries to an mlib_devel_11_1 revision and
> continue from there. ROACH2 uses Virtex6 and the 10.x and earlier tools do
> not support it. Disadvantages are that a lot of library maintainers will
> be
> working in mlib_devel_11_1 and bug fixes, changes etc
Hi Dave
It may be time to copy our libraries to an mlib_devel_11_1 revision and
continue from there. ROACH2 uses Virtex6 and the 10.x and earlier tools do
not support it. Disadvantages are that a lot of library maintainers will be
working in mlib_devel_11_1 and bug fixes, changes etc may not make
It looks like the mlib_devel_10_1/xps_library/xps_library,mdl
revision committed in r3025 was saved using simulink 7,4, which seems
to have introduced a "SID" parameter to all the SubSystem blocks.
This causes loads of "does not have a parameter named 'SID'" warnings
when opening up the "B
6 matches
Mail list logo
