Site Home   Archive Home   FAQ Home   How to search the Archive   How to Navigate the Archive   
Compare FPGA features and resources   

Threads starting:
1994JulAugSepOctNovDec1994
1995JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1995
1996JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1996
1997JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1997
1998JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1998
1999JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1999
2000JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2000
2001JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2001
2002JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2002
2003JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2003
2004JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2004
2005JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2005
2006JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2006
2007JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2007
2008JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2008
2009JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2009
2010JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2010
2011JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2011
2012JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2012
2013JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2013
2014JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2014
2015JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2015
2016JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2016
2017JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2017
2018JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2018
2019JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2019
2020JanFebMarAprMay2020

Authors:A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Custom Search

Messages from 102800

Article: 102800
Subject: Re: CPLD (CoolRunner failures)
From: Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat>
Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 03:12:19 -0400
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On 20 May 2006 18:59:40 -0700, the renowned "Peter Alfke"
<alfke@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>
>Nigel wrote:
>> >
>> the vendor claims shorting can happen in devices near capacity.
>
>"Vendor" would have to be Xilinx, but I cannot believe that statement.
>Filling a low-power CPLD to capacity does not create a Vcc-to-GND short
>circuit.
>That is not even an urban legend, it's just silly.
>Peter Alfke, Xilinx Applications

It could conceivably cause some kind of ground bounce leading to
latchup of the parasitic SCR and thence to death by overheating of the
die if the supply is capable of delivering the amps.  

Is the ground and bypass situation on the chip close to ideal? (at
least 4-layer board  with gnd and Vdd planes and lots of bypass
capacitance)? 

I have a different kind of part (micro) from a different vendor that
manages to tell the difference between what should be a simple  CMOS
input (no pullups or anything like that) grounded and the same input
grounded through a 1.2K resistor. 


Best regards, 
Spehro Pefhany
-- 
"it's the network..."                          "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com

Article: 102801
Subject: Re: [Newbie] Suitable FPGA for my project
From: "John Adair" <jea@replacewithcompanyname.co.uk>
Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 01:09:20 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Franco

If you want a European supplier have a look at our range here <http://www.enterpoint.co.uk/boardproducts.html>. For a very low cost board our Raggedstone1 RS1-400 is GBP 50 approx 75 Euro plus VAT if it applies. These boards also have the capability to be built into arrays and can either operate in a PCI slot or stand alone (with adaptor) on the bench.

If your DSP function is intensive I would consider moving upmarket to a Virtex-4 based board. They have much more memory and faster and more multipliers.

Article: 102802
Subject: Re: CPLD (CoolRunner failures)
From: Jim Granville <no.spam@designtools.co.nz>
Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 20:33:02 +1200
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Spehro Pefhany wrote:
> On 20 May 2006 18:59:40 -0700, the renowned "Peter Alfke"
> <alfke@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Nigel wrote:
>>
>>>the vendor claims shorting can happen in devices near capacity.
>>
>>"Vendor" would have to be Xilinx, but I cannot believe that statement.
>>Filling a low-power CPLD to capacity does not create a Vcc-to-GND short
>>circuit.
>>That is not even an urban legend, it's just silly.
>>Peter Alfke, Xilinx Applications
> 
> 
> It could conceivably cause some kind of ground bounce leading to
> latchup of the parasitic SCR and thence to death by overheating of the
> die if the supply is capable of delivering the amps.  
> 
> Is the ground and bypass situation on the chip close to ideal? (at
> least 4-layer board  with gnd and Vdd planes and lots of bypass
> capacitance)? 

  Latch-up is mainly a current injection effect, and can be reduced if 
the lead-connections to the outside world have series impedance, or
series impedance + external clamps, in severe cases.
  In devices with internal Vcc-IO clamp diodes, you do need to watch 
lifting Vcc effects, from long duration/significant values clamp 
currents, and power supplies that do not sink (most do not).
  Low power CPLDs need attention in this, because their own load 
currents are very low.

  On the PLDs we've tried to create LatchUp on, -ve pulse latchup was 
easier than +ve ( but still >> 100mA) and +ve latchup needed quite 
massive over-voltages to get enough current (higher clamp impedences)
- so in that direction, pin failures are likely to happen at the same 
time, or first.

-jg


Article: 102803
Subject: MicroBlaze as SubModule Problem
From: "hitsx@hit.edu.cn" <hitsx@hit.edu.cn>
Date: 21 May 2006 01:49:57 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
My Design Implements a MB processor, and in XPS I use "Tool - > Export
to ProjNav" to export the processor to my design as a sub module. The
problem is that When I finish my c program, how to compile the program
into BlockRAM?
Since it is a XST flow, not a XPS flow, how to update the blockram in
the bitstream?


Article: 102804
Subject: Re: CPLD (CoolRunner failures)
From: Falk Brunner <Falk.Brunner@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 10:53:41 +0200
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Spehro Pefhany schrieb:

> It could conceivably cause some kind of ground bounce leading to
> latchup of the parasitic SCR and thence to death by overheating of the
> die if the supply is capable of delivering the amps.  

Could also be a power-up sequence issue. When different voltages are 
onboard and another IC connected to the CPLD is power up much ealier and 
drives the (still unpowered) IOs of the CPLD, latchup can happen too.

> Is the ground and bypass situation on the chip close to ideal? (at
> least 4-layer board  with gnd and Vdd planes and lots of bypass
> capacitance)? 

Naaaaa, I wouldnt like to develop paranoia on this. I think a double 
layer for this CPLD is just fine, with some 100nF placed close to the CPLD.

Regards
Falk

Article: 102805
Subject: Re: [Newbie] Suitable FPGA for my project
From: Dave <dave@comteck.com>
Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 04:35:13 -0500
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Sun, 21 May 2006 01:09:20 -0700, John Adair wrote:

> Franco
> 
> If you want a European supplier have a look at our range here <http://www.enterpoint.co.uk/boardproducts.html>. For a very low cost board our Raggedstone1 RS1-400 is GBP 50 approx 75 Euro plus VAT if it applies. These boards also have the capability to be built into arrays and can either operate in a PCI slot or stand alone (with adaptor) on the bench.
> 
> If your DSP function is intensive I would consider moving upmarket to a Virtex-4 based board. They have much more memory and faster and more multipliers.

John--

You really need to cut down on your line lengths.


    ~Dave~

Article: 102806
Subject: Re: CPLD (CoolRunner failures)
From: Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat>
Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 05:40:39 -0400
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Sun, 21 May 2006 10:53:41 +0200, the renowned Falk Brunner
<Falk.Brunner@gmx.de> wrote:

>Spehro Pefhany schrieb:
>
>> It could conceivably cause some kind of ground bounce leading to
>> latchup of the parasitic SCR and thence to death by overheating of the
>> die if the supply is capable of delivering the amps.  

The reasoning here is that a more fully utilized CPLD has more nodes
switching very quickly and virtually the same instant, which in turn
means more volts across fixed stray layout, package and die
inductance. 

>Could also be a power-up sequence issue. When different voltages are 
>onboard and another IC connected to the CPLD is power up much ealier and 
>drives the (still unpowered) IOs of the CPLD, latchup can happen too.

Sure, however I fail to see how power sequencing issues would lead to
different results depending on the percentage of the CPLD which is
used.

>> Is the ground and bypass situation on the chip close to ideal? (at
>> least 4-layer board  with gnd and Vdd planes and lots of bypass
>> capacitance)? 
>
>Naaaaa, I wouldnt like to develop paranoia on this. I think a double 
>layer for this CPLD is just fine, with some 100nF placed close to the CPLD.
>
>Regards
>Falk

Maybe, but it's hard to make a marginal layout when full power planes
are employed, even with an dumb-as-a-post autorouter. Single and
double-sided boards offer far richer opportunities in this department.


Best regards, 
Spehro Pefhany
-- 
"it's the network..."                          "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com

Article: 102807
Subject: Re: CPLD (CoolRunner failures)
From: Falk Brunner <Falk.Brunner@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 13:17:55 +0200
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Spehro Pefhany schrieb:

> The reasoning here is that a more fully utilized CPLD has more nodes
> switching very quickly and virtually the same instant, which in turn
> means more volts across fixed stray layout, package and die
> inductance. 

Right, but this is only a qualitative statement. What matters is 
quantity. So how big is the overall inductance? How much does voltage 
drop increase between a almost empty and a almost full device?
Answering these question (which is not so easy) may yield the answer, 
that there is plenty of margin left. Ind I guess Xilinx did quite alot 
of testing with fully utilized devices.

> Sure, however I fail to see how power sequencing issues would lead to
> different results depending on the percentage of the CPLD which is
> used.

Ask Mr. Murphy ;-) Maybe its just one critical IO that is used or not.

Regrds
Falk

Article: 102808
Subject: Quartus ByteBlaster in Active Serial Programming mode not working
From: Mark Murray <w.h.oami@example.com>
Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 12:39:31 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hey folks

I have an Elektor FPGA project board (with an Altera EP1C12k and a
EPCS4).

My board is working nicely, but I'm having an issue with Quartus,
where I can't program the serial eeprom using the active serial mode.

Quartus objects to this on the grounds that "Current programming
hardware does not support Active Serial Programming programming mode".

I set up the Quartus programming tool to upload the .pof file, and it
got the right serial eeprom from the file. Everything goes just fine
until I hit the "Start" button, when the above error pops up.

Any idea what gives? I've tried resetting the parallel port in the
BIOS (Classic, ECP and Bidirectional modes). I've installed the
ByteBlaster driver, and Quartus thinks I have a ByteBlasterMV, not a
ByteBlasterII. Is this relevant?

I had exactly the same error with Quartus 5.1sp2 and 6.0.

M

Article: 102809
Subject: Re: Quartus ByteBlaster in Active Serial Programming mode not working
From: "Antti" <Antti.Lukats@xilant.com>
Date: 21 May 2006 04:54:42 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
you need ByteBlaster II that supports the AS mode,
i think I was the first who made the hardware changes public to convert
and ByteBlaster to BB 2 but I dont have the reference any more

its fairly simple change though

Antti


Article: 102810
Subject: Re: MicroBlaze as SubModule Problem
From: "hitsx@hit.edu.cn" <hitsx@hit.edu.cn>
Date: 21 May 2006 05:09:49 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
I find the documents for tool "Data2mem", and use the command line to
invoke this tool.

In my design, totally 9 brams are used, 4 for the MB, while the rests
are for other usage. And the other 5 brams are initialized by coe file,
so in Data2mem tool I only need to update the 4 brams.

I used the bmm file found in the XPS directory, but the data2mem tool
gives warning:
Not all BitLanes in ADDRESS_RANGE 'lmb_ram' have BMM location
constraints. Some data for this ADDRESS_RANGE may have been lost during
BIT file


Article: 102811
Subject: Re: JTAG chaining of two different Xilinx Spartan 3E boards
From: "radarman" <jshamlet@gmail.com>
Date: 21 May 2006 05:10:41 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Keep the cabling from the USB/JTAG adapter short, and in particular,
keep the stub lengths for TCK and TMS short and it should work. I've
built/used debug rigs that used JTAG (albeit for Pentium processors,
not FPGA's), and it's more robust than you would imagine. I've seen
JTAG work reliably with clock stubs nearly 6" long made out of standard
22 guage wire using regular header posts. (like the ones on the sample
kit board) The only caveat is that I measured the wires such that the
lines were all very closely matched.

More to the point, you aren't going to harm anything so long as you
don't connect the two independent VCC lines together, so give it a go.
I don't know if Xilinx supports it, but Altera tools will let you run a
verification loop through the chain - if it passes, you are fairly
assured the chain is good.

If it doesn't work by just keeping the cabling to a minimum, you can
always try inserting a clock buffer/driver and using independent
outputs for each board - but keep in mind a normal buffer will add skew
to the clock. Try to use a clock driver that uses a built-in PLL or DLL
to negate the skew. Linear and IDT both have parts that are
"zero-skew". Same thing applies, though - keep the cabling short.

I suspect that you will find an appropriate harness to be adequate,
though. Please post your findings. I'm planning on doing something very
similar, as I recently received a freebie S3E sample pack, and I'm
waiting on my freebie Coolrunner CPLD board.


Article: 102812
Subject: Re: MicroBlaze as SubModule Problem
From: "hitsx@hit.edu.cn" <hitsx@hit.edu.cn>
Date: 21 May 2006 05:14:27 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
And I wondering about why and whether this warnning will affect my
design?


Article: 102813
Subject: Re: MicroBlaze as SubModule Problem
From: "Antti" <Antti.Lukats@xilant.com>
Date: 21 May 2006 05:20:53 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
inport-export flow is deprecated.

1 create ISE project
2 add new source, select 'embedded processor'
3 change the EDK design
4 write your C application
5 close XPS
6 double click "Update bitstream with processor data'
---------------
7 get some double-espresso
8 copy .BIT file to mini-SD  card
9 insert the card into card slot of hydraXC
10 apply 3.3V power

http://hydraxc.xilant.com

steps 7-10 are optional :)

this flow just works, just do it as described in Xilinx documentation,
no tricks no magic no special things.

I just verified this for both MicroBlaze and PowerPC systems, in both
cases
the project .bit files worked on first attempt nothing to change or
fix.

Antti

full projectst for ISE as toplevel and MB or PPC as submodule
will be uploaded to hydraxc suppport site shortly, there isnt any
magic with them, but just to make the startup easier such
example design may be useful - there are many ways to get
it wrong


Article: 102814
Subject: Re: MicroBlaze as SubModule Problem
From: "Antti" <Antti.Lukats@xilant.com>
Date: 21 May 2006 05:22:25 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
the BMM thing has been the most problematic all the time,

but with the latest ISE/EDK it actually works all fine, as long
as you dont try to something the wrong (deprecated way)
see my other comment.

Antti


Article: 102815
Subject: Re: Suitable FPGA for my project
From: Franco Tiratore <nie@nie.nie>
Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 13:05:40 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Sat, 20 May 2006 13:13:59 +0200, Falk Brunner <Falk.Brunner@gmx.de>
wrote:

[...]
>Regards
>Falk


Danke fuer deine Hilfe!
Gruesse,
Franco

Article: 102816
Subject: Re: CPLD (CoolRunner failures)
From: paul$@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk (Paul Carpenter)
Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 14:32:36 +0100 (BST)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On Sunday, in article <4db0j4F19lkfkU1@individual.net>
     Falk.Brunner@gmx.de "Falk Brunner" wrote:
>Spehro Pefhany schrieb:
>> Sure, however I fail to see how power sequencing issues would lead to
>> different results depending on the percentage of the CPLD which is
>> used.
>
>Ask Mr. Murphy ;-) Maybe its just one critical IO that is used or not.

If it is true that only boards to one site with same program as other boards
fails, my money is on environmental or manufacturing.


I.E. something on the site is different to screw things up - ESD, other
     damage to boards, miswiring, latchup or other screw ups because
     of sequencing of external events.

     Manufacturing caused those boards to have something wrong with that
     batch.

All of which could still be a marginal issue in the design, that site
ensures happens.

-- 
Paul Carpenter          | paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk
<http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/>    PC Services
<http://www.gnuh8.org.uk/>              GNU H8 & mailing list info
<http://www.badweb.org.uk/>             For those web sites you hate


Article: 102817
Subject: Re: Quartus ByteBlaster in Active Serial Programming mode not working
From: Mark Murray <w.h.oami@example.com>
Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 14:42:49 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On 21 May 2006 04:54:42 -0700, "Antti" <Antti.Lukats@xilant.com>
wrote:

>you need ByteBlaster II that supports the AS mode,
>i think I was the first who made the hardware changes public to convert
>and ByteBlaster to BB 2 but I dont have the reference any more
>
>its fairly simple change though

I'm not using a real ByteBlaster, its the Elektor equivalent, and it
has got an AS mode. Its circuit is close to the Altera one in their
user guide, and it has the extra feedback bits that the BBII has.

I suspect something to do with the parallel port because I get the
error whether the "ByteBlaster" is connected or not.

FWIW, JTAG mode works just fine.

M

Article: 102818
Subject: Re: Have someone implementate the cpu86 or sparc embeded processor in the v-2 fpga
From: "Antti" <Antti.Lukats@xilant.com>
Date: 21 May 2006 08:49:46 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
you need brains
.


Article: 102819
Subject: Re: Signal 2 clocks long but only one clock possible
From: "Dennis" <dennis.binder@gmx.de>
Date: 21 May 2006 09:19:24 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>

Peter Alfke wrote:
> So you receive data at 125 MHz, and you transfer it then at 100 MHz (if
> I understand you right)
> How do you control the FIFO to prevent it from overflowing? What do you
> do with the flags?
> Peter Alfke, Xilinx (from home)

Hello,
my input data rate from the phy gigabit into the fifo is 162 Byte / 5
us.
The output data rate out of the fifo is approximately 162 Byte / 3 us.
The data is packet into 32 Bit and transfered over an external bus
which is
clocked by 100MHz/8 = 12.5MHz. I do not check the fifo status, because
I
know, that I'm fast enough to empty it. The only thing I need is a
1-clock-pulse
from the receiving component to tell that a new frame (162 Byte) has
been received.
 After this pulse is seen ( I name it frame_ready) a statemashine does
the rest without
beeing controlled by any signal from the receiving component ( I name
it phy_rx).
In this way I send the data with a corresponding chipselect to 1 of 3
external devices.
Every  external device has to get 128*512*162 Byte = ca. 10MB.  After
that, the chipselects
are switched to the next device. Because of this, every chipselect for
the external devices are
approximatly 0.3s long. I see this in my testbench and on the
oszilloscope.
Sometimes one of this chipselect is shorter than 0.3s which causes data
to be send to the wrong device. This happens randomly after 1000s or
12345s or something else,
A friend at work originally wrote the component for empting the fifo
and sending data. After long studies I decided to rewrite this
component. Absolutely new and absolutly different.
But with this version the same effect happens. Chipselects sometimes
are to short.
If we generate the testdata in the FPGA and replace the phy_rx
component the mashine works
ok. It looks like the receiving clock from the phy_rx is making us
problems in a way we do not understand. This receiving clock is
generated out of the received datastream at the gigabit phy device and
is connected through a DLL to the fifos write-clock.
To produce the short chipselects one of my counters in the statemashine
has to be reset. But a reset does not occur, because the short
chipselect sometimes occured at device 1, which is the default device
after reset. A reset would enlarge the chipselect.
A wrong working fifo has no effect on the chipselect-signals.
For the sending and receiving of data over gigabit phy we use 2 xilinx
boards ML401.

???

thanks for your email

Dennis


Article: 102820
Subject: Re: Have someone implementate the cpu86 or sparc embeded processor
From: Kolja Sulimma <news@sulimma.de>
Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 19:54:49 +0200
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Antti schrieb:
> you need brains

Sometimes one is enough.

Kolja

Article: 102821
Subject: Re: Have someone implementate the cpu86 or sparc embeded processor in the v-2 fpga
From: "Antti" <Antti.Lukats@xilant.com>
Date: 21 May 2006 11:08:04 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
ROTFL, 

Kolja I really enjoy your comments. Sure you are right.

Antti


Article: 102822
Subject: How simple can FPGA design be? (Mission Possible 2006)
From: "Antti" <Antti.Lukats@xilant.com>
Date: 21 May 2006 12:51:23 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Some things are simple.
Some things are fun.

FPGA's are both Simple and Fun - for all the Family!
Arent they?
Even on Sundays (when it rains)?

I think they are, and here is the story:

http://hydraxc.xilant.com/downloads/MissionPossible2006.pdf

Sorry for 1.6MB PDF download, some images are high-resolution.

Antti Lukats
from work on Sunday 21:50 local time


Article: 102823
Subject: Re: ispLEVER Starter 6.0 FPGA Design Software Available
From: lb.edc@telenet.be
Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 19:54:26 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi Antti,
ispLever now supports schematic for FPGA's as well as CPLD's.

Luc
On Sat, 20 May 2006 09:44:40 +0200, "Antti Lukats"
<antti@openchip.org> wrote:

>"bart" <bart.borosky@latticesemi.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag 
>news:1148084503.179769.316340@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Lattice has released a new version of our downloadable ispLEVER Starter
>> software, concurrent with version 6.0. Device support includes the 90nm
>> LatticeECP2-50 and can be downloaded here:
>> http://www.latticesemi.com/products/designsoftware/isplever/ispleverstarter.cfm
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bart Borosky, Lattice
>>
>
>are XP devices now suported in schematic?
>
>antti 
>

Article: 102824
Subject: Re: ispLEVER Starter 6.0 FPGA Design Software Available
From: lb.edc@telenet.be
Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 19:59:37 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Piotr,
In my opinion, if your design needs a simulator, then you better spend
some money on a real good simulator. BTW, the full version of ispLEVER
has ModelSim as simulator and the list price on Lattice's website is
$695, and when you order online 'only' $495. For this price you get
the OEM version of ModelSim - and this is by far the best deal you can
get

Regards,
Luc

On Sat, 20 May 2006 11:48:47 +0200, "Piotr Wyderski"
<wyderski@mothers.against.spam-ii.uni.wroc.pl> wrote:

>bart wrote:
>
>> Lattice has released a new version of our downloadable
>> ispLEVER Starter software
>
>Still without even the simplest free simulator?
>
>    Best regards
>    Piotr Wyderski



Site Home   Archive Home   FAQ Home   How to search the Archive   How to Navigate the Archive   
Compare FPGA features and resources   

Threads starting:
1994JulAugSepOctNovDec1994
1995JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1995
1996JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1996
1997JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1997
1998JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1998
1999JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1999
2000JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2000
2001JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2001
2002JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2002
2003JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2003
2004JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2004
2005JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2005
2006JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2006
2007JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2007
2008JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2008
2009JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2009
2010JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2010
2011JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2011
2012JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2012
2013JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2013
2014JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2014
2015JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2015
2016JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2016
2017JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2017
2018JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2018
2019JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2019
2020JanFebMarAprMay2020

Authors:A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Custom Search