Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #13464 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2013-09-11 11:11 -0500 |
| Last post | 2013-09-11 22:19 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 428 — 35 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.arch.embedded
Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> - 2013-09-11 11:11 -0500
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Rich Webb <webb.ra@example.net> - 2013-09-11 12:45 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Frank Miles <fpm@u.washington.edu> - 2013-09-11 16:59 +0000
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor dp <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2013-09-11 10:08 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> - 2013-09-11 12:27 -0500
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor dp <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2013-09-11 11:23 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor dp <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2013-09-11 11:32 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor dp <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2013-09-11 11:30 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-09-11 18:26 +0000
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> - 2013-09-11 13:37 -0500
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2013-09-11 21:51 +0200
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Randy Yates <yates@digitalsignallabs.com> - 2013-09-11 16:46 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2013-09-12 14:00 +0200
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Anders.Montonen@kapsi.spam.stop.fi.invalid - 2013-09-14 10:24 +0000
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-15 02:38 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-09-15 01:52 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-15 12:33 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> - 2013-09-15 13:02 -0500
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-15 14:33 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor robert bristow-johnson <rbj@audioimagination.com> - 2013-09-15 12:09 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2013-09-15 22:12 +0200
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-15 16:32 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2013-09-16 09:17 +0200
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-09-16 10:21 +0100
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-16 13:53 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-09-17 07:31 +0000
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-17 04:46 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor robert bristow-johnson <rbj@audioimagination.com> - 2013-09-17 10:46 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Randy Yates <yates@digitalsignallabs.com> - 2013-09-17 22:30 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-09-17 22:43 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor gtwrek@sonic.net (Mark Curry) - 2013-09-18 14:35 +0000
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor upsidedown@downunder.com - 2013-09-18 18:41 +0300
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-09-18 09:12 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-09-19 07:57 +0000
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-09-19 22:22 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-09-20 05:44 +0000
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-09-20 00:05 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-09-20 14:18 +0000
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor upsidedown@downunder.com - 2013-09-20 16:24 +0300
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-09-20 08:31 +0100
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> - 2013-09-20 12:43 -0500
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-09-20 20:29 +0100
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor gtwrek@sonic.net (Mark Curry) - 2013-09-20 21:39 +0000
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-09-20 15:27 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-09-20 23:52 +0100
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-09-20 18:52 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor dp <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2013-09-20 19:38 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-09-24 01:20 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-09-24 01:22 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2013-09-24 03:33 -0500
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-24 21:17 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-09-22 10:56 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-09-22 20:08 +0100
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-09-22 12:21 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-09-23 00:12 +0100
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-09-22 16:50 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-09-23 09:12 +0100
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-09-23 06:49 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor dp <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2013-09-23 16:31 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-09-24 01:13 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor dp <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2013-09-24 02:15 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-09-24 15:56 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2013-09-23 00:46 -0500
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-09-22 23:18 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Arlet Ottens <usenet+5@c-scape.nl> - 2013-09-23 09:00 +0200
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-09-23 00:18 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Arlet Ottens <usenet+5@c-scape.nl> - 2013-09-23 09:27 +0200
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-09-23 06:56 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2013-09-23 10:50 -0500
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-09-28 13:04 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor upsidedown@downunder.com - 2013-09-20 15:41 +0300
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-09-20 14:33 +0000
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor upsidedown@downunder.com - 2013-09-20 15:55 +0300
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-09-20 08:42 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2013-09-23 09:06 +0200
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-09-28 12:07 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2013-09-29 22:15 +0200
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-01 00:33 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2013-10-01 10:25 +0200
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-03 10:26 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-10-03 19:07 +0000
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Scott Hemphill <hemphill@hemphills.net> - 2013-10-03 19:17 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Scott Hemphill <hemphill@hemphills.net> - 2013-10-03 21:00 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> - 2013-09-18 11:29 -0500
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor dp <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2013-09-18 10:20 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-09-18 21:53 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2013-09-19 09:48 +0200
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-09-19 09:38 +0100
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2013-09-19 11:24 +0200
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-09-19 10:53 +0100
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2013-09-19 13:12 +0200
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-09-19 15:31 +0100
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-09-19 15:44 +0100
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-09-19 22:53 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-09-20 08:37 +0100
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-09-30 17:48 +0100
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-01 00:37 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-10-01 09:14 +0100
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2013-09-22 21:31 +0200
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-09-23 00:19 +0100
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2013-09-23 09:23 +0200
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-09-23 09:00 +0100
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2013-09-23 11:31 +0200
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-09-28 13:02 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-09-28 22:54 +0100
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-09-28 22:33 +0000
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-09-28 22:29 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-09-29 10:01 +0100
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2013-09-29 23:02 +0200
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-30 10:36 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Randy Yates <yates@digitalsignallabs.com> - 2013-09-30 14:09 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-10-01 01:27 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-10-01 05:46 +0000
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2013-10-01 09:19 +0200
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-10-01 03:28 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2013-10-01 10:13 +0200
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-10-01 12:39 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> - 2013-10-01 16:56 +0000
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-10-01 18:59 +0000
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-10-01 17:25 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Randy Yates <yates@digitalsignallabs.com> - 2013-10-01 18:37 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Randy Yates <yates@digitalsignallabs.com> - 2013-10-01 19:29 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Randy Yates <yates@digitalsignallabs.com> - 2013-10-01 19:31 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor (die evil thread, die!!!) robert bristow-johnson <rbj@audioimagination.com> - 2013-10-01 16:36 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor (die evil thread, die!!!) Randy Yates <yates@digitalsignallabs.com> - 2013-10-01 20:51 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor (die evil thread, die!!!) Randy Yates <yates@digitalsignallabs.com> - 2013-10-01 21:08 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor (die evil thread, die!!!) David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2013-10-02 09:08 +0200
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor (die evil thread, die!!!) Mel Wilson <mwilson@the-wire.com> - 2013-10-02 09:36 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor (die evil thread, die!!!) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2013-10-02 17:16 -0500
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor (die evil thread, die!!!) upsidedown@downunder.com - 2013-10-03 10:15 +0300
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor (die evil thread, die!!!) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2013-10-03 02:32 -0500
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor (die evil thread, die!!!) stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2013-10-03 15:45 +0000
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor (die evil thread, die!!!) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-03 09:06 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor (die evil thread, die!!!) Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-10-03 17:18 +0100
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor (die evil thread, die!!!) stephenXXX@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2013-10-03 16:51 +0000
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor (die evil thread, die!!!) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-03 10:11 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor (die evil thread, die!!!) Randy Yates <yates@digitalsignallabs.com> - 2013-10-02 09:52 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor (die evil thread, die!!!) David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2013-10-03 09:35 +0200
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor (die evil thread, die!!!) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2013-10-03 03:26 -0500
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor (die evil thread, die!!!) David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2013-10-03 13:27 +0200
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor (die evil thread, die!!!) Randy Yates <yates@digitalsignallabs.com> - 2013-10-03 12:55 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor (die evil thread, die!!!) David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2013-10-04 16:59 +0200
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor (die evil thread, die!!!) glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-10-02 01:02 +0000
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor (die evil thread, die!!!) "Boudewijn Dijkstra" <sp4mtr4p.boudewijn@indes.com> - 2013-10-03 16:28 +0200
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor (die evil thread, die!!!) dp <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2013-10-03 08:03 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor (die evil thread, die!!!) glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-10-03 19:15 +0000
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor (die evil thread, die!!!) Randy Yates <yates@digitalsignallabs.com> - 2013-10-03 15:50 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor (die evil thread, die!!!) Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> - 2013-10-03 15:27 -0500
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor (die evil thread, die!!!) Randy Yates <yates@digitalsignallabs.com> - 2013-10-03 16:37 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor (die evil thread, die!!!) glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-10-03 21:51 +0000
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor (die evil thread, die!!!) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2013-10-04 00:02 -0500
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor (die evil thread, die!!!) Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> - 2013-10-02 00:12 -0500
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor (die evil thread, die!!!) robert bristow-johnson <rbj@audioimagination.com> - 2013-10-03 10:24 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> - 2013-10-02 00:13 -0500
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-10-02 06:51 +0000
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Randy Yates <yates@digitalsignallabs.com> - 2013-10-02 09:55 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Randy Yates <yates@digitalsignallabs.com> - 2013-10-02 09:58 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-10-02 03:12 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Randy Yates <yates@digitalsignallabs.com> - 2013-10-02 09:49 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-10-02 12:04 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Randy Yates <yates@digitalsignallabs.com> - 2013-10-02 12:51 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Randy Yates <yates@digitalsignallabs.com> - 2013-10-02 15:18 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-10-02 19:46 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-10-01 23:09 +0000
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-19 03:53 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-09-19 01:45 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-19 04:34 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-09-19 02:17 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor gtwrek@sonic.net (Mark Curry) - 2013-09-19 16:49 +0000
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-09-19 17:05 +0000
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-09-19 13:08 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-09-19 20:22 +0000
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-09-19 14:42 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-20 00:34 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-09-19 22:15 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-09-20 08:43 +0100
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-09-19 22:16 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> - 2013-09-19 12:28 -0500
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Randy Yates <yates@digitalsignallabs.com> - 2013-09-19 15:08 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-18 12:52 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor robert bristow-johnson <rbj@audioimagination.com> - 2013-09-18 10:23 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-09-19 08:03 +0000
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor robert bristow-johnson <rbj@audioimagination.com> - 2013-09-19 12:53 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-09-18 21:31 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-19 04:18 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-09-19 02:02 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-09-19 16:47 +0000
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor j.m.granville@gmail.com - 2013-09-24 19:54 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-09-25 19:12 +0100
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-09-25 11:50 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-26 01:26 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-09-26 09:11 +0100
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor dp <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2013-09-26 02:12 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-09-26 13:46 +0100
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-09-26 09:55 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-09-26 18:44 +0100
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-09-26 12:31 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-09-26 23:09 +0100
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-26 08:45 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-09-19 07:44 +0000
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-19 03:58 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-09-19 09:45 +0100
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-09-19 16:50 +0000
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-09-19 07:31 +0000
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> - 2013-09-17 11:30 -0500
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor gtwrek@sonic.net (Mark Curry) - 2013-09-17 21:11 +0000
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-18 13:11 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2013-09-17 11:42 +0200
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Al Clark <aclark@danvillesignal.com> - 2013-09-17 14:06 +0000
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2013-09-17 16:44 +0200
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> - 2013-09-17 11:43 -0500
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-17 13:22 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2013-09-18 17:17 +0200
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-09-18 16:46 +0100
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-09-18 09:16 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-18 14:13 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-09-18 20:00 +0100
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2013-09-18 19:56 -0500
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-09-19 09:56 +0100
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-18 14:01 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-09-18 12:35 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2013-09-18 23:28 +0200
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> - 2013-09-18 16:39 -0500
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-09-18 17:26 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor dp <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2013-09-18 17:56 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-09-22 17:53 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-23 01:00 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-09-23 00:15 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> - 2013-09-23 11:31 -0500
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-23 21:15 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Randy Yates <yates@digitalsignallabs.com> - 2013-09-23 22:41 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-24 02:57 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-09-23 18:42 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> - 2013-09-23 21:16 -0500
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-09-23 20:31 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> - 2013-09-24 12:01 -0500
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-19 03:14 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-09-19 00:53 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2013-09-19 09:58 +0200
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> - 2013-09-18 16:43 -0500
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-19 03:21 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-09-19 00:54 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-09-19 08:25 +0000
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-26 09:03 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-09-26 06:47 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-26 09:46 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-09-26 10:06 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-26 13:45 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-09-26 23:54 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-29 08:31 -0400
Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> - 2013-09-29 23:37 +0000
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-09-30 01:16 +0100
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor dp <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2013-09-29 22:31 -0700
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-09-30 10:06 +0100
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-30 11:12 -0400
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor dp <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2013-09-30 09:24 -0700
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-10-01 01:33 -0400
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor dp <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2013-09-30 22:48 -0700
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-10-01 03:04 -0400
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor dp <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2013-10-01 00:27 -0700
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-10-01 03:32 -0400
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> - 2013-09-30 11:37 +0000
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-09-30 13:40 +0100
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-30 11:43 -0400
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-09-30 17:07 +0100
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-30 11:38 -0400
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> - 2013-09-30 18:57 +0000
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-09-30 12:36 -0700
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor jhallen@TheWorld.com (Joseph H Allen) - 2013-09-30 20:15 +0000
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> - 2013-09-30 20:38 +0000
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-10-01 02:55 -0400
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> - 2013-10-01 11:50 +0000
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-10-01 12:53 -0400
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> - 2013-10-01 17:34 +0000
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-10-01 17:31 -0400
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> - 2013-10-02 12:15 +0000
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-10-02 12:19 -0400
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> - 2013-10-03 11:55 +0000
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-03 01:04 -0700
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-10-04 00:19 -0400
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-03 23:07 -0700
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-01 20:06 -0700
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor dp <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2013-10-01 22:38 -0700
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-10-02 03:09 -0400
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-02 00:51 -0700
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-10-02 03:58 -0400
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-02 01:27 -0700
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-10-02 04:24 -0400
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-02 01:54 -0700
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-10-02 19:51 -0400
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-03 00:17 -0700
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-10-04 00:27 -0400
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-03 23:09 -0700
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-10-04 09:30 -0400
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-06 10:53 -0700
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-10-09 05:12 -0400
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor dp <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2013-10-09 02:24 -0700
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> - 2013-10-09 12:05 +0000
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor dp <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2013-10-09 08:06 -0700
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-10-04 10:01 +0100
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-10-04 09:38 -0400
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-10-04 15:25 +0100
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-10-04 10:35 -0400
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-10-03 09:43 +0100
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-10-04 00:29 -0400
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor dp <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2013-10-04 01:04 -0700
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-10-04 09:40 -0400
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-10-02 10:21 +0100
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-10-02 19:54 -0400
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-10-03 09:48 +0100
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-03 00:21 -0700
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-10-03 09:55 +0100
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor dp <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2013-10-03 04:45 -0700
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-10-03 13:02 +0100
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor dp <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2013-10-03 07:19 -0700
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-10-04 00:02 -0400
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor dp <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2013-10-04 00:55 -0700
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-10-04 09:45 -0400
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-10-02 10:06 +0100
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor dp <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2013-10-02 02:24 -0700
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-10-02 10:57 +0100
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor dp <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2013-10-02 04:31 -0700
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-10-02 15:45 +0100
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor dp <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2013-10-02 08:29 -0700
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-03 00:47 -0700
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-10-03 09:59 +0100
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-10-03 10:09 +0100
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-10-01 01:51 -0400
Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-30 10:44 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor dp <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2013-09-27 01:10 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-29 08:36 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor dp <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2013-09-29 22:06 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-30 11:47 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor dp <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2013-09-30 09:14 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2013-09-19 01:27 +0200
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-19 03:49 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-15 16:40 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor robert bristow-johnson <rbj@audioimagination.com> - 2013-09-15 14:53 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-16 14:22 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-09-15 15:12 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor robert bristow-johnson <rbj@audioimagination.com> - 2013-09-15 14:58 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> - 2013-09-15 18:19 -0500
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-16 14:48 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> - 2013-09-16 17:17 -0500
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-16 18:41 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> - 2013-09-17 11:22 -0500
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-17 15:40 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Torfinn Ingolfsen <tingo@home.no> - 2013-09-17 18:44 +0200
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-16 14:31 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-09-17 07:44 +0000
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> - 2013-09-17 11:46 -0500
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-09-19 09:21 +0000
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> - 2013-09-19 12:26 -0500
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-09-19 20:17 +0000
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-09-18 08:25 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-18 14:16 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-09-18 12:39 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor langwadt@fonz.dk - 2013-09-18 15:18 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-09-19 09:49 +0000
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-09-17 07:35 +0000
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-09-15 13:11 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-15 16:26 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-15 16:36 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-09-17 07:49 +0000
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-17 05:30 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-09-19 10:00 +0000
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor gtwrek@sonic.net (Mark Curry) - 2013-09-16 16:51 +0000
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-16 14:54 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor gtwrek@sonic.net (Mark Curry) - 2013-09-16 19:06 +0000
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-16 15:22 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Rob Gaddi <rgaddi@technologyhighland.invalid> - 2013-09-17 09:40 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> - 2013-09-17 11:48 -0500
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-17 15:50 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor gtwrek@sonic.net (Mark Curry) - 2013-09-17 21:03 +0000
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Randy Yates <yates@digitalsignallabs.com> - 2013-09-17 17:05 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor gtwrek@sonic.net (Mark Curry) - 2013-09-17 21:16 +0000
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor dp <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2013-09-17 16:38 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Randy Yates <yates@digitalsignallabs.com> - 2013-09-17 21:33 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2013-09-18 10:48 +0300
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.please> - 2013-09-15 10:39 -0500
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-15 12:39 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> - 2013-09-15 12:58 -0500
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-09-15 11:33 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-15 14:40 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.please> - 2013-09-15 14:25 -0500
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-09-15 13:35 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor robert bristow-johnson <rbj@audioimagination.com> - 2013-09-15 12:40 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.please> - 2013-09-15 14:57 -0500
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor robert bristow-johnson <rbj@audioimagination.com> - 2013-09-15 13:44 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-09-16 01:46 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-09-16 10:26 +0100
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-09-16 02:44 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Mel Wilson <mwilson@the-wire.com> - 2013-09-16 09:01 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-09-16 12:18 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.please> - 2013-09-16 10:06 -0500
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor robert bristow-johnson <rbj@audioimagination.com> - 2013-09-16 10:34 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-09-16 12:09 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> - 2013-09-16 17:31 -0500
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-09-16 12:00 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2013-09-17 07:59 +0000
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-09-17 10:13 +0100
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-17 05:56 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-09-17 11:37 +0100
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-17 16:00 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-09-17 21:30 +0100
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2013-09-18 12:46 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2013-09-18 18:00 +0100
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Don Y <this@isnotme.com> - 2013-09-11 12:10 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Vladimir Vassilevsky <nospam@nowhere.com> - 2013-09-11 14:30 -0500
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Randy Yates <yates@digitalsignallabs.com> - 2013-09-11 15:39 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Randy Yates <yates@digitalsignallabs.com> - 2013-09-11 15:46 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Randy Yates <yates@digitalsignallabs.com> - 2013-09-11 20:39 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.please> - 2013-09-11 20:03 -0500
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2013-09-12 14:09 +0200
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor dp <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2013-09-12 07:11 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2013-09-12 16:34 +0200
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Randy Yates <yates@digitalsignallabs.com> - 2013-09-12 10:42 -0400
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor dp <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2013-09-12 12:48 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> - 2013-09-12 16:14 -0500
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2013-09-12 21:39 +0200
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2013-09-12 23:41 +0200
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> - 2013-09-12 16:08 -0500
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor David Brown <david.brown@removethis.hesbynett.no> - 2013-09-13 01:00 +0200
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.really> - 2013-09-12 23:03 -0500
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2013-09-13 08:47 +0200
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Dave Nadler <drn@nadler.com> - 2013-09-11 15:40 -0700
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.please> - 2013-09-11 20:05 -0500
Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor Randy Yates <yates@digitalsignallabs.com> - 2013-09-11 22:19 -0400
Page 14 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 … 22 Next page →
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-01 03:32 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor |
| Message-ID | <l2dtro$mkj$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #14037 |
On 10/1/2013 3:27 AM, dp wrote: > On Tuesday, October 1, 2013 10:04:25 AM UTC+3, rickman wrote: >> On 10/1/2013 1:48 AM, dp wrote: >>> On Tuesday, October 1, 2013 8:33:31 AM UTC+3, rickman wrote: >>>> ... >>>>> Unless things have changed last few years they certainly do not >>>>> provide the fusemap data saying which bit from the jedec file >>>>> goes into which bit in the jtag stream, which jtag commands to >>>>> issue to the chip etc. >>>>> I thought meanwhile you would be aware of that? What C code, where is that >>>>> C code supposed to go and what is it supposed to be doing, how many >>>>> PC-s do you want the cpld user to have stitched to a single board/cpu system. >>>> >>>> >>>> No, they provide a file output with JTAG commands. One form is called a >>>> JAM file. I haven't done the interface myself so I'm not familiar with >>>> the specifics, but I have looked at the support provided by the vendors >>>> and you don't have to invent any wheels yourself. Like I said, they >>>> even provide C code which you simply have to provide the low level >>>> routines to control the hardware pins, usually bit banged from an MCU. >>> >>> You just don't know how this works then. Well, you may want to take >>> the word of someone who does. >> >> >> I very seldom take the "word" of anyone. If something is true, it can >> be shown. > > What I tried was to tell you in a nice way that you > are way out of your depth so you may want to drop it there. I am > not interested in doing classes on jtag basics etc. Dimeter, if you can't discuss this fine. I don't get your attitude is all. If I disagree with you I am not "out of my depth". >>> There is no point to go into details how this is done just for the sake >>> of some party-talk level argument. >> >> Ok, why did you start? If you don't want to discuss it then just let it >> drop. > > You may want to check you posts to see who started what, your memory > seems to fail you. No problem with me dropping it, why can't you > drop it? Consider it dropped. -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-30 11:37 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor |
| Message-ID | <l2bnpq$58c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #13981 |
On 2013-09-29, Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: > On 30/09/13 00:37, Simon Clubley wrote: >> >> As a aside, has there been any movement towards open source tools for >> FPGA development ? The last time I looked at this a couple or so years >> ago it was all vendor specific and closed source. > > The place and route plus post-route timing simulation requires > intimate knowledge of the FPGA internals. I can't see the chip > manufacturers /ever/ divulging that to (non-governmental) third > parties. > So, IOW, there is still no movement towards open specification FPGAs at all (not even from, say, a manufacturer moving into the FPGA market for the first time). I suspected as much, but thanks for the confirmation. > >> A quick look now didn't seem to turn up much in the open source area >> apart from the Papilio board range (which claims to be open source, >> but I cannot see any evidence the FPGA tools themselves fall into that >> category). > > There are quite a few open fpga source boards. What do you mean by "open" in this context ? For me, a open source FPGA board would be one in which you could (1) create your design, (2) compile the design into something the board can run and (3) load your design into the board itself all using tools which you could compile from source. IOW, the same as you can do with traditional toolchains where you can (for example) compile gcc, binutils and OpenOCD all from source because the traditional manufacturers (mostly) make the required information for their MCUs freely available. BTW, do you have any examples of the boards you are thinking of please as I would like to take a look. Thanks, Simon. -- Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-30 13:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor |
| Message-ID | <5je2u.19565$w64.5740@fx17.am4> |
| In reply to | #13988 |
On 30/09/13 12:37, Simon Clubley wrote: > On 2013-09-29, Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >> On 30/09/13 00:37, Simon Clubley wrote: >>> >>> As a aside, has there been any movement towards open source tools for >>> FPGA development ? The last time I looked at this a couple or so years >>> ago it was all vendor specific and closed source. >> >> The place and route plus post-route timing simulation requires >> intimate knowledge of the FPGA internals. I can't see the chip >> manufacturers /ever/ divulging that to (non-governmental) third >> parties. >> > > So, IOW, there is still no movement towards open specification FPGAs at > all (not even from, say, a manufacturer moving into the FPGA market for > the first time). I suspected as much, but thanks for the confirmation. I have no direct knowledge; my statement is based on intuition. If there's a solid reason my intuition is wrong, I'd be curious to know. But frankly, who cares if the boards are open source? (Any more than anybody cares whether PC motherboards are open source). >>> A quick look now didn't seem to turn up much in the open source area >>> apart from the Papilio board range (which claims to be open source, >>> but I cannot see any evidence the FPGA tools themselves fall into that >>> category). >> >> There are quite a few open fpga source boards. > > What do you mean by "open" in this context ? I don't mean anything. See the definition provided by each *board* manufacturer. > For me, a open source FPGA board would be one in which you could > (1) create your design, (2) compile the design into something the board > can run and (3) load your design into the board itself all using tools > which you could compile from source. > > IOW, the same as you can do with traditional toolchains where you can > (for example) compile gcc, binutils and OpenOCD all from source because > the traditional manufacturers (mostly) make the required information for > their MCUs freely available. > > BTW, do you have any examples of the boards you are thinking of please > as I would like to take a look. Use google, and have a look at papillo, pipistrello, xula, mojo
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-30 11:43 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor |
| Message-ID | <l2c66n$ppf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #13989 |
On 9/30/2013 8:40 AM, Tom Gardner wrote: > On 30/09/13 12:37, Simon Clubley wrote: >> On 2013-09-29, Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >>> On 30/09/13 00:37, Simon Clubley wrote: >>>> >>>> As a aside, has there been any movement towards open source tools for >>>> FPGA development ? The last time I looked at this a couple or so years >>>> ago it was all vendor specific and closed source. >>> >>> The place and route plus post-route timing simulation requires >>> intimate knowledge of the FPGA internals. I can't see the chip >>> manufacturers /ever/ divulging that to (non-governmental) third >>> parties. >>> >> >> So, IOW, there is still no movement towards open specification FPGAs at >> all (not even from, say, a manufacturer moving into the FPGA market for >> the first time). I suspected as much, but thanks for the confirmation. > > I have no direct knowledge; my statement is based on intuition. > If there's a solid reason my intuition is wrong, I'd be curious > to know. > > But frankly, who cares if the boards are open source? (Any more > than anybody cares whether PC motherboards are open source). Actually, it is a bit hard to *not* be open source, at least at the net list level. It is hard to use an FPGA without netlist info on the board. A schematic is often provided although usually in PDF form, not a CAD package form. You may not get Gerber files, but you can always clone an FPGA board unless it has some proprietary MCU or something on it with firmware. Many now use the USB/JTAG chips that are just plug and play, so not much to clone really. > Use google, and have a look at > papillo, pipistrello, xula, mojo I'm a bit surprised there isn't a web list of FPGA boards. Maybe this is worth a little effort. -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-30 17:07 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor |
| Message-ID | <Xkh2u.6291$zv7.5622@fx04.am4> |
| In reply to | #13994 |
On 30/09/13 16:43, rickman wrote: > On 9/30/2013 8:40 AM, Tom Gardner wrote: >> >> But frankly, who cares if the [fpga] boards are open source? (Any more >> than anybody cares whether PC motherboards are open source). > > Actually, it is a bit hard to *not* be open source, at least at the net list level. It is hard to use an FPGA without netlist info on the board. Yes, but that's only part of a board's design, as I'm sure you're aware. And for those that aren't, give just the netlist to a novice PCB designer, and see if the result works reliably :) Nowadays if I'm going to buy a board I like to see a definition of the nominal track impedance, track lengths (for differential i/o), and where gnd pin*s* are on the i/o connectors relative to the signals. Quite a few boards have, IMNSHO, connectors with far too few grounds. (There's a low-cost logic fpga analyser out there that has an external clock arriving at a 4-pin header. There's *no*m gnd on that header) > A schematic is often provided although usually in PDF > form, not a CAD package form. You may not get Gerber files, but you can always clone an FPGA board unless it has some proprietary MCU or something on it with firmware. Many now use the USB/JTAG > chips that are just plug and play, so not much to clone really. > > >> Use google, and have a look at >> papillo, pipistrello, xula, mojo > > I'm a bit surprised there isn't a web list of FPGA boards. Maybe this is worth a little effort. There are several, easily googlable. How up-to-date they are is a different issue.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-30 11:38 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor |
| Message-ID | <l2c5tb$nv8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #13988 |
On 9/30/2013 7:37 AM, Simon Clubley wrote: > On 2013-09-29, Tom Gardner<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote: >> On 30/09/13 00:37, Simon Clubley wrote: >>> >>> As a aside, has there been any movement towards open source tools for >>> FPGA development ? The last time I looked at this a couple or so years >>> ago it was all vendor specific and closed source. >> >> The place and route plus post-route timing simulation requires >> intimate knowledge of the FPGA internals. I can't see the chip >> manufacturers /ever/ divulging that to (non-governmental) third >> parties. >> > > So, IOW, there is still no movement towards open specification FPGAs at > all (not even from, say, a manufacturer moving into the FPGA market for > the first time). I suspected as much, but thanks for the confirmation. First time in the FPGA market? Uh, there *aren't* any. FPGAs is a market where the big guys have managed to patent up the technology and keep pretty much all newcomers out of the market. I think there is one new company working with Intel using their 22 nm fabs, but I don't recall the details. Seems they stick their heads up every now and again to make some announcement, but promptly go back underground. They are targeting the high end of the market anyway, so it doesn't impact me and likely not you either. Open source tools sound great to an open source user, but not so much to anyone else. It just doesn't fit the business models of FPGA vendors now or in the future. Trust me, business models are the reason why you don't find FPGAs in easy to use packages and lower pin counts. The business plan is to target the large volume customers only and they don't need these combinations. They certainly don't need open source tools! >>> A quick look now didn't seem to turn up much in the open source area >>> apart from the Papilio board range (which claims to be open source, >>> but I cannot see any evidence the FPGA tools themselves fall into that >>> category). >> >> There are quite a few open fpga source boards. > > What do you mean by "open" in this context ? > > For me, a open source FPGA board would be one in which you could > (1) create your design, (2) compile the design into something the board > can run and (3) load your design into the board itself all using tools > which you could compile from source. That may be what it means to you, but you will have to write the software. Open source hardware is just that, open source *hardware*. They give you all the info you need on the hardware... they aren't supplying software. If you are going to get hung up on the FOSS thing, then just don't bother with FPGAs. It ain't happenin' any time soon... period! > IOW, the same as you can do with traditional toolchains where you can > (for example) compile gcc, binutils and OpenOCD all from source because > the traditional manufacturers (mostly) make the required information for > their MCUs freely available. > > BTW, do you have any examples of the boards you are thinking of please > as I would like to take a look. MCUs are not FPGAs. MCUs have fairly simple instruction set compared to the data required to describe an FPGA. Further, the MCU FOSS tools are fairly mature and capable. FPGA vendors aren't interested in turning their reputations over to open source techies because of the FUD on *their own* part. I know there is an ORSOC open source FPGA board for running processor designs I've seen on the opencores.org site. Go to their store. It is intended to run the OpenRISC processor, but of course can run whatever you like. There is also one on KickStarter, I don't recall the name. This one is minimal. What features would you be looking for? -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-30 18:57 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor |
| Message-ID | <l2chji$3fe$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #13993 |
On 2013-09-30, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > On 9/30/2013 7:37 AM, Simon Clubley wrote: >> >> So, IOW, there is still no movement towards open specification FPGAs at >> all (not even from, say, a manufacturer moving into the FPGA market for >> the first time). I suspected as much, but thanks for the confirmation. > > First time in the FPGA market? Uh, there *aren't* any. FPGAs is a > market where the big guys have managed to patent up the technology and > keep pretty much all newcomers out of the market. I think there is one > new company working with Intel using their 22 nm fabs, but I don't > recall the details. Seems they stick their heads up every now and again > to make some announcement, but promptly go back underground. They are > targeting the high end of the market anyway, so it doesn't impact me and > likely not you either. > Yes, I figured as much... >> >> What do you mean by "open" in this context ? >> >> For me, a open source FPGA board would be one in which you could >> (1) create your design, (2) compile the design into something the board >> can run and (3) load your design into the board itself all using tools >> which you could compile from source. > > That may be what it means to you, but you will have to write the > software. Open source hardware is just that, open source *hardware*. > They give you all the info you need on the hardware... they aren't > supplying software. > It's not so much the software which matters but the specifications which allow you to create that software yourself if you so desired. > If you are going to get hung up on the FOSS thing, then just don't > bother with FPGAs. It ain't happenin' any time soon... period! > Everytime I look at the FPGA world, I come away with the exact same impression. :-) > > What features would you be looking for? > Nothing too fancy, at least to begin with. FPGAs are a new area for me, and it's something I would like to play with sometime. It's just that I would like to learn the technology rather than the tools driving the technology but at heart I do realise that isn't going to happen in FPGA land any time soon. It doesn't stop me from looking, asking, and wishing however. :-) Simon. -- Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-30 12:36 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor |
| Message-ID | <7x61tiayp8.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #14007 |
Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes: > It doesn't stop me from looking, asking, and wishing however. :-) Some of the FPGA bitstream formats have been reverse engineered: a web search should find some info. There are FOSS place and route tools but they don't generate bitstreams.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jhallen@TheWorld.com (Joseph H Allen) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-30 20:15 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor |
| Message-ID | <l2cm4o$vql$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #14011 |
In article <7x61tiayp8.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com>,
Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes:
>> It doesn't stop me from looking, asking, and wishing however. :-)
>Some of the FPGA bitstream formats have been reverse engineered: a web
>search should find some info. There are FOSS place and route tools but
>they don't generate bitstreams.
Another thing to point out: the place and route tools used by Xilinx and
Lattice were developed by NeoCAD- a company which reverse engineered the
Xilinx format in ~1991, did a better job than Xilinx's own tools of the time
(apr) and got bought by them.
--
/* jhallen@world.std.com AB1GO */ /* Joseph H. Allen */
int a[1817];main(z,p,q,r){for(p=80;q+p-80;p-=2*a[p])for(z=9;z--;)q=3&(r=time(0)
+r*57)/7,q=q?q-1?q-2?1-p%79?-1:0:p%79-77?1:0:p<1659?79:0:p>158?-79:0,q?!a[p+q*2
]?a[p+=a[p+=q]=q]=q:0:0;for(;q++-1817;)printf(q%79?"%c":"%c\n"," #"[!a[q-1]]);}
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-09-30 20:38 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor |
| Message-ID | <l2cnh2$9qa$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #14013 |
On 2013-09-30, Joseph H Allen <jhallen@TheWorld.com> wrote: > In article <7x61tiayp8.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com>, > Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: >>Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes: >>> It doesn't stop me from looking, asking, and wishing however. :-) > >>Some of the FPGA bitstream formats have been reverse engineered: a web >>search should find some info. There are FOSS place and route tools but >>they don't generate bitstreams. That's interesting; I didn't know that. Thanks for that. > > Another thing to point out: the place and route tools used by Xilinx and > Lattice were developed by NeoCAD- a company which reverse engineered the > Xilinx format in ~1991, did a better job than Xilinx's own tools of the time > (apr) and got bought by them. > I didn't know that as well. That's one of the reasons I like open source; people are always been pushed to do better as you cannot sit on a closed source toolchain and then use your market position to stifle innovation. Simon. PS: I'm _not_ trying to start a closed/open source discussion here; I just didn't know about NeoCAD. -- Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-01 02:55 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor |
| Message-ID | <l2drmf$dif$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #14014 |
On 9/30/2013 4:38 PM, Simon Clubley wrote: > On 2013-09-30, Joseph H Allen<jhallen@TheWorld.com> wrote: >> In article<7x61tiayp8.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com>, >> Paul Rubin<no.email@nospam.invalid> wrote: >>> Simon Clubley<clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes: >>>> It doesn't stop me from looking, asking, and wishing however. :-) >> >>> Some of the FPGA bitstream formats have been reverse engineered: a web >>> search should find some info. There are FOSS place and route tools but >>> they don't generate bitstreams. > > That's interesting; I didn't know that. Thanks for that. > >> >> Another thing to point out: the place and route tools used by Xilinx and >> Lattice were developed by NeoCAD- a company which reverse engineered the >> Xilinx format in ~1991, did a better job than Xilinx's own tools of the time >> (apr) and got bought by them. >> > > I didn't know that as well. > > That's one of the reasons I like open source; people are always been > pushed to do better as you cannot sit on a closed source toolchain and > then use your market position to stifle innovation. > > Simon. > > PS: I'm _not_ trying to start a closed/open source discussion here; > I just didn't know about NeoCAD. That is not why the FPGA tools are closed source. It has nothing to do with stifling innovation. Just the opposite, the vendors vie heavily using their tools. In fact, I was once told that Xilinx spends more money on software development than they do on hardware development, lol. At one time a *lot* of people preferred Altera because their tools were perceived as being more user friendly. I think that perception waned a bit but from what I've heard is now picking up again. So there is a *lot* of incentive to improve the tools. I only wish the tools were open. But in lieu of that, I'm happy with free (as in beer) tools. The question I have is what exactly do you want to do with FPGAs that you need open source tools? When you say you want to "play with" and "learn the technology", why can't you do that with the free beer tools? One *big* issue I have with the current tools is that they *are* licensed even though they are free (as in beer). It has been many a time the licensing got in the way of using them. I now have it on my calendar to renew my license key every year around my birthday. -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-01 11:50 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor |
| Message-ID | <l2ecte$4u9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #14029 |
On 2013-10-01, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > > I only wish the tools were open. But in lieu of that, I'm happy with > free (as in beer) tools. The question I have is what exactly do you > want to do with FPGAs that you need open source tools? When you say you > want to "play with" and "learn the technology", why can't you do that > with the free beer tools? > I suppose the honest answer is that you can for most practical purposes. It's just that over the years I've always liked to learn how some new technology works at it's lowest levels. I've never been happy with just writing code against some library/API without understanding how the library/API is implemented on (or uses) the underlying hardware. And yes, I do realise that's not viable with the current state of the FPGA market place, but like I said previously, it doesn't stop one from wishing. :-) > One *big* issue I have with the current tools is that they *are* > licensed even though they are free (as in beer). It has been many a > time the licensing got in the way of using them. I now have it on my > calendar to renew my license key every year around my birthday. > This also leaves you vulnerable to a vendor changing their plans for those tools or simply been bought out by a rival. Simon. -- Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-01 12:53 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor |
| Message-ID | <l2euo0$i7c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #14045 |
On 10/1/2013 7:50 AM, Simon Clubley wrote: > On 2013-10-01, rickman<gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I only wish the tools were open. But in lieu of that, I'm happy with >> free (as in beer) tools. The question I have is what exactly do you >> want to do with FPGAs that you need open source tools? When you say you >> want to "play with" and "learn the technology", why can't you do that >> with the free beer tools? >> > > I suppose the honest answer is that you can for most practical purposes. > > It's just that over the years I've always liked to learn how some new > technology works at it's lowest levels. I've never been happy with just > writing code against some library/API without understanding how the > library/API is implemented on (or uses) the underlying hardware. > > And yes, I do realise that's not viable with the current state of the > FPGA market place, but like I said previously, it doesn't stop one > from wishing. :-) The problem you describe is not really the situation here. There may be aspects of the tools that are hidden. I'm sure the vendors are very protective of their tricks and techniques. But the hardware is wide open. They may not give you all the gory details of what connects to what in an explicit way, but the crux of FPGA functionality is there for you to see and use. I guess what I am saying is that with the current approach in designing FPGAs you aren't missing anything except all the hard work. If you want to know more about how they work on the inside there are plenty of people with that knowledge. The vendors don't go to great lengths to publish it because 99.99% of the users don't need it. If you ask for it and have a valid reason for wanting it I can't imagine they wouldn't share it with you. Some 10 or 15 years ago all the experts in FPGAs *had* to have intimate knowledge of the devices to optimize their designs. But now that just isn't needed. For the most part it is like asking an MCU vendor about their microcode. You may be curious, but it doesn't really matter to your work. >> One *big* issue I have with the current tools is that they *are* >> licensed even though they are free (as in beer). It has been many a >> time the licensing got in the way of using them. I now have it on my >> calendar to renew my license key every year around my birthday. >> > > This also leaves you vulnerable to a vendor changing their plans for > those tools or simply been bought out by a rival. Not sure what vulnerability that creates exactly. But yes, the whole licensing issue is a PITA. Some 5 years ago I *bought* what would now be the free tools from Lattice. Between the time I paid for the order and the time they shipped they changed the simulator from Modelsim which I knew and Aldec which I didn't. I ranted and raved but they wouldn't ship me the Modelsim I ordered. In the end I ended up liking... actually preferring Aldec over Modelsim, but I didn't like the fact that I was stuck. As I have said, this is the state of FPGA development and is unlikely to change anytime soon. There is just too much market force to keep things the way they are. Heck, I would just love to see the FPGA vendors come out with devices in packages like MCUs so that I can use FPGAs in more MCU-like applications. But they are entrenched in their thinking and won't be changing anytime soon in that regard either. If you are interested in learning FPGA design I would be happy to help. Just let me know. -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-01 17:34 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor |
| Message-ID | <l2f12i$14e$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #14048 |
On 2013-10-01, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/1/2013 7:50 AM, Simon Clubley wrote: >> >> This also leaves you vulnerable to a vendor changing their plans for >> those tools or simply been bought out by a rival. > > Not sure what vulnerability that creates exactly. But yes, the whole > licensing issue is a PITA. Some 5 years ago I *bought* what would now > be the free tools from Lattice. Between the time I paid for the order > and the time they shipped they changed the simulator from Modelsim which > I knew and Aldec which I didn't. I ranted and raved but they wouldn't > ship me the Modelsim I ordered. In the end I ended up liking... > actually preferring Aldec over Modelsim, but I didn't like the fact that > I was stuck. > The kind of thing I was thinking of was someone doing some short term thinking and deciding to turn the free users into a profit source. Other vulnerabilities include the existing free tools been scrapped in favour of a new set of different tools if a vendor decides to revamp their toolchain line or is taken over. If there's a annual license, you don't have the option to continue using the existing (and known) tools. > As I have said, this is the state of FPGA development and is unlikely to > change anytime soon. There is just too much market force to keep things > the way they are. Heck, I would just love to see the FPGA vendors come > out with devices in packages like MCUs so that I can use FPGAs in more > MCU-like applications. But they are entrenched in their thinking and > won't be changing anytime soon in that regard either. > > If you are interested in learning FPGA design I would be happy to help. > Just let me know. > Thank you; I appreciate that. There are lots of other things on my outstanding list which I want to tackle/play with first, but if I actually do find time to play with a FPGA board, I will keep that in mind. Thanks, Simon. -- Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-01 17:31 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor |
| Message-ID | <l2ff0t$og1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #14050 |
On 10/1/2013 1:34 PM, Simon Clubley wrote: > On 2013-10-01, rickman<gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 10/1/2013 7:50 AM, Simon Clubley wrote: >>> >>> This also leaves you vulnerable to a vendor changing their plans for >>> those tools or simply been bought out by a rival. >> >> Not sure what vulnerability that creates exactly. But yes, the whole >> licensing issue is a PITA. Some 5 years ago I *bought* what would now >> be the free tools from Lattice. Between the time I paid for the order >> and the time they shipped they changed the simulator from Modelsim which >> I knew and Aldec which I didn't. I ranted and raved but they wouldn't >> ship me the Modelsim I ordered. In the end I ended up liking... >> actually preferring Aldec over Modelsim, but I didn't like the fact that >> I was stuck. >> > > The kind of thing I was thinking of was someone doing some short term > thinking and deciding to turn the free users into a profit source. Not sure what that means. It is hard to get revenue from free tools... but wait! That is exactly what they do. They give away free tools and get revenue from the chip sales. > Other vulnerabilities include the existing free tools been scrapped in > favour of a new set of different tools if a vendor decides to revamp their > toolchain line or is taken over. If there's a annual license, you don't > have the option to continue using the existing (and known) tools. I paid for my Lattice tools, so they appear to be obligated to renew the license for free every year. It is a PITA and has bitten me in the butt a number of times, but they always ship me a new license file... in fact, several license files. Every time I use a new computer they license the new one and still send me license files for the old ones too. There may be problems with the licensing in the future if they decide to abandon all support for the tool. But that is not a concern to me as I don't wish to use a tool beyond it's expiration date. That reminds me, I have a bunch of very old Xilinx software someone wanted me to ship to them. >> As I have said, this is the state of FPGA development and is unlikely to >> change anytime soon. There is just too much market force to keep things >> the way they are. Heck, I would just love to see the FPGA vendors come >> out with devices in packages like MCUs so that I can use FPGAs in more >> MCU-like applications. But they are entrenched in their thinking and >> won't be changing anytime soon in that regard either. >> >> If you are interested in learning FPGA design I would be happy to help. >> Just let me know. >> > > Thank you; I appreciate that. There are lots of other things on my > outstanding list which I want to tackle/play with first, but if I > actually do find time to play with a FPGA board, I will keep that in > mind. Also if you have any ideas of what you would like to see in an FPGA board I would be interested in hearing about it. Making them would be right up my alley. -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-02 12:15 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor |
| Message-ID | <l2h2pg$p32$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #14055 |
On 2013-10-01, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/1/2013 1:34 PM, Simon Clubley wrote: >> >> The kind of thing I was thinking of was someone doing some short term >> thinking and deciding to turn the free users into a profit source. > > Not sure what that means. It is hard to get revenue from free tools... > but wait! That is exactly what they do. They give away free tools and > get revenue from the chip sales. > Ok, just to be more detailed. :-) A PHB within the FPGA company sees that some people are using the tools for free. They figure that if they start charging for the tools, _some_ of the existing users will still pay for them and the PHB will see a increase in sales for the next couple of quarters or so. They don't consider or care about the long term effect of driving new customers to their rivals - that's "not their problem". Pretty much like Sun/Oracle did with Solaris, BTW... >> >> Thank you; I appreciate that. There are lots of other things on my >> outstanding list which I want to tackle/play with first, but if I >> actually do find time to play with a FPGA board, I will keep that in >> mind. > > Also if you have any ideas of what you would like to see in an FPGA > board I would be interested in hearing about it. Making them would be > right up my alley. > One or two general ideas, but nothing too specific at the moment; just learning the technology will do to start with. My main problem is that the number of more developed ideas I have in other technology areas already exceeds my available spare time to work on them. :-) Simon. -- Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-02 12:19 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor |
| Message-ID | <l2hh44$eok$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #14083 |
On 10/2/2013 8:15 AM, Simon Clubley wrote: > On 2013-10-01, rickman<gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 10/1/2013 1:34 PM, Simon Clubley wrote: >>> >>> The kind of thing I was thinking of was someone doing some short term >>> thinking and deciding to turn the free users into a profit source. >> >> Not sure what that means. It is hard to get revenue from free tools... >> but wait! That is exactly what they do. They give away free tools and >> get revenue from the chip sales. >> > > Ok, just to be more detailed. :-) > > A PHB within the FPGA company sees that some people are using the tools > for free. They figure that if they start charging for the tools, _some_ > of the existing users will still pay for them and the PHB will see a > increase in sales for the next couple of quarters or so. > > They don't consider or care about the long term effect of driving new > customers to their rivals - that's "not their problem". > > Pretty much like Sun/Oracle did with Solaris, BTW... PHB? Like a PhD but for Bean counting? lol You can imagine any scenario you wish. The trend is in the opposite direction with each vendor vying against the others to squeeze a little more into the "free" tools. For some reason they don't support the very largest parts with the free tools. I expect this is a matter of profit, not the pittance they get from the tools, but they want anyone using their BIG parts (read that as BIG profit) to buy tools so they are registered and they can get *all* the help they need... not too much different from helping the little old lady across the street because you know she is worth billions. This is getting a bit silly really. The design process for FPGAs is to write HDL code that is largely independent of vendor and can be compiled on any vendor's tools. Then for anyone not in a larger company with the bucks to waste, use the vendor's free (as in beer) tools to turn that HDL into a bitstream which can be used to program the FPGA. If you don't like the vendor for any number of reasons (like he doesn't "like" you anymore and changes something that dis's you) you can always switch to a different vendor. Does that put you at risk of having hardware you can't support... it shouldn't because you can still use the old tools if you want. I'm still using tools from nearly 5 years ago when I stopped paying for the maintenance although if I do any more updates to my 5 year old design it will likely be with the free (as in beer) tools. >>> Thank you; I appreciate that. There are lots of other things on my >>> outstanding list which I want to tackle/play with first, but if I >>> actually do find time to play with a FPGA board, I will keep that in >>> mind. >> >> Also if you have any ideas of what you would like to see in an FPGA >> board I would be interested in hearing about it. Making them would be >> right up my alley. >> > > One or two general ideas, but nothing too specific at the moment; just > learning the technology will do to start with. My main problem is that > the number of more developed ideas I have in other technology areas > already exceeds my available spare time to work on them. :-) Don't let your distaste for commercial software ruin FPGAs for you. They are great stuff really. Imagine programming at the microcode level! -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-03 11:55 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor |
| Message-ID | <l2jlvo$8pc$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #14092 |
On 2013-10-02, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/2/2013 8:15 AM, Simon Clubley wrote: >> >> A PHB within the FPGA company sees that some people are using the tools >> for free. They figure that if they start charging for the tools, _some_ >> of the existing users will still pay for them and the PHB will see a >> increase in sales for the next couple of quarters or so. >> >> They don't consider or care about the long term effect of driving new >> customers to their rivals - that's "not their problem". >> >> Pretty much like Sun/Oracle did with Solaris, BTW... > > PHB? Like a PhD but for Bean counting? lol > Pointy-Haired Boss. It's a Dilbert reference. > You can imagine any scenario you wish. The trend is in the opposite > direction with each vendor vying against the others to squeeze a little > more into the "free" tools. For some reason they don't support the very > largest parts with the free tools. I expect this is a matter of profit, > not the pittance they get from the tools, but they want anyone using > their BIG parts (read that as BIG profit) to buy tools so they are > registered and they can get *all* the help they need... not too much > different from helping the little old lady across the street because you > know she is worth billions. > > This is getting a bit silly really. The design process for FPGAs is to > write HDL code that is largely independent of vendor and can be compiled > on any vendor's tools. Then for anyone not in a larger company with the > bucks to waste, use the vendor's free (as in beer) tools to turn that > HDL into a bitstream which can be used to program the FPGA. If you > don't like the vendor for any number of reasons (like he doesn't "like" > you anymore and changes something that dis's you) you can always switch > to a different vendor. > It may very well be getting a bit silly for the FPGA market. I freely admit I don't know much about that market at the moment; but it's just I have seen the behaviour I describe in other unrelated areas. > > Don't let your distaste for commercial software ruin FPGAs for you. > They are great stuff really. Imagine programming at the microcode level! > Oh, yes. :-) Simon. -- Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-03 01:04 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor |
| Message-ID | <7xpprmwzju.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com> |
| In reply to | #14055 |
rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> writes: > Also if you have any ideas of what you would like to see in an FPGA > board I would be interested in hearing about it. Making them would be > right up my alley. 1. Programmable packet filter, discussed in other posts. 2. Fixed-latency crypto engine with lots of primitives, alongside a softcore controller. Performance doesn't have to be stupendous for this to be useful. 3. Full-band FM broadcast receiver, i.e. an SDR that lets you Tivo every FM station in range at the same time, by decoding them all simultaneously. Use lots of DSP blocks for this. Maybe you could even do that for TV signals: there is some company doing something like that. 4. High-precision (128 bit) IEEE 754 and 854 arithmetic that gets all the details right, to bring in topic from other thread. 5. Ramdisk controller. Take a board full of consumer laptop DIMMS (32 bits wide since no parity) and treat as block memory, with ECC implemented in the FPGA. Could have a speed hit compared to actual (expensive) ECC server memory, but that is ok if not too severe. Google "ANS-9010" for the type of product I'm imagining, but with much more capacity (that thing only held four dimms). 6. Optical communcations: DSSS-modulate a bitstream onto an LED at high chip rate. Receiver uses FPGA to implement a bunch of parallel correlators for decoding. Those are just off the top of my head. It's not too hard to think up stuff like this.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-10-04 00:19 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Open source FPGA toolchain ?, was: Re: Small, fast, resource-rich processor |
| Message-ID | <l2lflq$5lf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #14106 |
On 10/3/2013 4:04 AM, Paul Rubin wrote: > rickman<gnuarm@gmail.com> writes: >> Also if you have any ideas of what you would like to see in an FPGA >> board I would be interested in hearing about it. Making them would be >> right up my alley. > > 1. Programmable packet filter, discussed in other posts. That woulld be the code you put *into* the FPGA board. I'm talking about what you need *on* the FPGA board. I'll assume this means at least one Ethernet interface of some sort. > 2. Fixed-latency crypto engine with lots of primitives, alongside a > softcore controller. Performance doesn't have to be stupendous > for this to be useful. Again, isn't that what *you* design and put into the FPGA? > 3. Full-band FM broadcast receiver, i.e. an SDR that lets you Tivo > every FM station in range at the same time, by decoding them all > simultaneously. Use lots of DSP blocks for this. Maybe you could > even do that for TV signals: there is some company doing something > like that. Hmmm... I don't think we are communicating. > 4. High-precision (128 bit) IEEE 754 and 854 arithmetic that gets all > the details right, to bring in topic from other thread. No, not at all. > 5. Ramdisk controller. Take a board full of consumer laptop DIMMS (32 > bits wide since no parity) and treat as block memory, with ECC > implemented in the FPGA. Could have a speed hit compared to actual > (expensive) ECC server memory, but that is ok if not too severe. > Google "ANS-9010" for the type of product I'm imagining, but with > much more capacity (that thing only held four dimms). So you want a bunch of DIMM sockets? How many separate interfaces to the FPGA? > 6. Optical communcations: DSSS-modulate a bitstream onto an LED > at high chip rate. Receiver uses FPGA to implement a bunch of > parallel correlators for decoding. So you want an LED? They are a dime a dozen, literally. > Those are just off the top of my head. It's not too hard to think up > stuff like this. Now can you think of what you would like ***on*** the board rather than the code you would write for inside the FPGA? -- Rick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 14 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 … 22 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.arch.embedded
csiph-web