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 84350

Article: 84350
Subject: Re: "Mine is bigger than yours..."
From: "Paul Leventis" <paul.leventis@utoronto.ca>
Date: 17 May 2005 11:38:54 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
BTW, there are dev kits available for Cyclone II.  The DSP dev kit,
Cyclone II edition and the Nios II dev kit, Cyclone II edition (which
use an EP2C35) are now shipping. The PCI dev kit, Cyclone II edition
will start shipping next month. Customers can place orders for all
these today.

DSP: http://www.altera.com/products/devkits/altera/kit-dsp-2C35.html
Nios II:
http://www.altera.com/products/devkits/altera/kit-nios-2c35.html
PCI: http://www.altera.com/products/devkits/altera/kit-pci-2c35.html

Regards,

Paul Leventis
Altera Corp.


Article: 84351
Subject: Re: FPGA design under Mac OS X ?
From: "Andy Peters" <Bassman59a@yahoo.com>
Date: 17 May 2005 11:45:53 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Phil Tomson wrote:

> Well Big EDA (your Mentors, Cadences, Synopsys-es :) support more
than 3
> platforms already depending on the tool (Solaris, HPUX, Linux,
Windows).
> I would imagine that it would be a lot easier to support OSX than it
would
> be to support HPUX ;-)  (if you've ever had to support HPUX, you know
what I
> mean)  But in general, you're right, they won't support another
platform
> (OSX) unless they suddenly find a financially compelling reason to do
so.

I know a handful of scientists who've dumped their Solaris machines for
G5 Macs running OS X.  Their applications are either homegrown
simulations which were easily ported (X11 is X11, after all) or
commercial programs like Mathematica and Matlab.  Point being that I
don't think there's as much pain in going from Solaris to OS X as their
is in going from any Unix to Windows.

-a


Article: 84352
Subject: Re: "Mine is bigger than yours..."
From: "Antti Lukats" <antti@openchip.org>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 20:48:27 +0200
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
"Paul Leventis" <paul.leventis@utoronto.ca> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1116355134.958776.172170@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> BTW, there are dev kits available for Cyclone II.  The DSP dev kit,
> Cyclone II edition and the Nios II dev kit, Cyclone II edition (which
> use an EP2C35) are now shipping. The PCI dev kit, Cyclone II edition
> will start shipping next month. Customers can place orders for all
> these today.
>
> DSP: http://www.altera.com/products/devkits/altera/kit-dsp-2C35.html
> Nios II:
> http://www.altera.com/products/devkits/altera/kit-nios-2c35.html
> PCI: http://www.altera.com/products/devkits/altera/kit-pci-2c35.html
>
> Regards,
>
> Paul Leventis
> Altera Corp.
>

those all are WAY over priced compared to hpe-mini
http://www.trs-asic.com

Antti
PS Paul, I recently sent you an private email, just out of curiosity did you
receive it?



Article: 84353
Subject: Re: V4 vs. Stratix-II...
From: Jim Granville <no.spam@designtools.co.nz>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 07:42:07 +1200
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Austin Lesea wrote:
> 
> Two fabs:  It is a challenge, but then having two qualified sources of 
> supply is a definite advantage for our customers.

  Hmm.. Do these parts have different label codes, so users can
readily identify which FAB they came from ?
  This could be an advantage to some, but to others it might mean having 
to double-up on the qualification work, or worse...

-jg


Article: 84354
Subject: Which Simulators
From: "gallen" <arlencox@gmail.com>
Date: 17 May 2005 13:08:42 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
I'm sure this kind of things has come up in the past, but given that
things change, I'd like to throw this out there.

Which simulators do people like to use for their HDL purposes?

I have tried a couple of simulators and I was curious about peoples
recommendations.

I have used Modelsim XE starter for my purposes (I am just a hobbyest
now), icarus verilog and GPL cver.  I have used the built-in quartus
simulator as well.

So a couple questions regarding these.  Which simulators do people
consider feature complete?  Why do I never hear about cver in this
group?  Does nobody use it?  If not, why?  What's really wrong with
Modelsim.  People seem faily opposed to it.  They say the error
messages are bad, but I certainly feel that icarus error messages are
worse.

Also, I haven't really discussed VHDL.  Which are best for this?  I've
heard GHDL is pretty good.

I've mostly discussed free simulators, but I'm also interested in how
expensive simulators compare to the free sims.

-Arlen


Article: 84355
Subject: Re: V4 vs. Stratix-II...
From: Austin Lesea <austin@xilinx.com>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 13:15:11 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Jim,

Yes, they are marked so they an be identified easily.

For qualification we advise customers to obtain parts from both fabs (ie 
request them) so they do not have to do qualification more than once.

Of course, customers are free to request parts from a single vendor, 
although that may subject them to supply issues if they are not planning 
far enough ahead.

Austin

Jim Granville wrote:

> Austin Lesea wrote:
> 
>>
>> Two fabs:  It is a challenge, but then having two qualified sources of 
>> supply is a definite advantage for our customers.
> 
> 
>  Hmm.. Do these parts have different label codes, so users can
> readily identify which FAB they came from ?
>  This could be an advantage to some, but to others it might mean having 
> to double-up on the qualification work, or worse...
> 
> -jg
> 

Article: 84356
Subject: Re: Which Simulators
From: Mike Treseler <mike_treseler@comcast.net>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 14:36:49 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
gallen wrote:
> I'm sure this kind of things has come up in the past

It has. See:
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=fpga+recommend+simulator

       -- Mike Treseler

Article: 84357
Subject: About back annotated simulations...
From: Fred C <fcez05@free.fr>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 00:01:04 +0200
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
...what are their really use for ?
For several years, I developped and succesfully used FPGA(Xilinx,
Altera, Actel) designed with strongs Static Timing analyses, with a good
constraint coverage and only some lite back annotated simulations.
After some recent discussions, I'm looking for external experiences that
can prove me that back-annotated simulations in min/typ/max timings are
not only better for design verification - I'm convinced of this-, but
are necessary, even if done with the static timing analyses.
Is there something I missed ?
Thank you for your attention, and your remarks.

Frederic.


Article: 84358
Subject: Re: Is a gated oscillator using NAND okay within a Cyclone FPGA?
From: Paul Boven <p.boven@chello.nl>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 00:01:37 +0200
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi Peter,

Peter Alfke wrote:
> Click on
> http://www.xilinx.com/xlnx/xweb/xil_tx_home.jsp
> and look for "Six easy pieces #3" by yours truly.

Just read them, and they turned out very helpfull for the tinkering I'm 
doing. Thanks for sharing! Any plans on 'Six not so easy pieces"?

Regards, Paul Boven.

Article: 84359
Subject: Re: About back annotated simulations...
From: Mike Treseler <mike_treseler@comcast.net>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 15:42:02 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Fred C wrote:
> About back annotated simulations ...what are their really use for ?

Evaluating synthesis tools.
Debugging synthesis problems.

> For several years, I developped and succesfully used FPGA(Xilinx,
> Altera, Actel) designed with strongs Static Timing analyses, with a good
> constraint coverage and only some lite back annotated simulations.
> After some recent discussions, I'm looking for external experiences that
> can prove me that back-annotated simulations in min/typ/max timings are
> not only better for design verification - I'm convinced of this-, but
> are necessary, even if done with the static timing analyses.

If you're already convinced, why pose the question?

> Is there something I missed ?

STA provides 100% timing verification
for synchronous designs in much less
time than a back-annotated simulation requires.


        -- Mike Treseler

Article: 84360
Subject: Re: About back annotated simulations...
From: Phil Hays <Spampostmaster@comcast.net>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 17:52:57 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Fred C wrote:

>...what are their really use for ?
>For several years, I developped and succesfully used FPGA(Xilinx,
>Altera, Actel) designed with strongs Static Timing analyses, with a good
>constraint coverage and only some lite back annotated simulations.
>After some recent discussions, I'm looking for external experiences that
>can prove me that back-annotated simulations in min/typ/max timings are
>not only better for design verification - I'm convinced of this-, but
>are necessary, even if done with the static timing analyses.
>Is there something I missed ?

Suppose you were designing an FPGA that would control some part of an
oil refinery.  Or the landing of a probe to Mars.  Or the engines on
an airliner.  Or the dosage of radiation given to a cancer patient.

Wouldn't you want to verify the design as correct in as many ways as
you could?

After all, do you really know that static timing analysis is correct
and complete?  Sure, you can check it twice, but what if you made the
same mistake twice?  Do you really know that the synthesis, place and
route was all done correctly?  I've only once know this to fail, but
once might be one too many.

A back-annotated simulation isn't fool proof, there are still lots of
issues like crossing clock boundaries that can't be checked this way,
but it is a way to decrease the risk of something critical being
missed.  And sometimes that matters a lot.


--
Phil Hays
Phil-hays at posting domain (- .net + .com) should work for email


Article: 84361
Subject: Re: FPGA design under Mac OS X ?
From: Simon <news@gornall.net>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 17:55:45 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
B. Joshua Rosen wrote:
> On Sun, 15 May 2005 04:57:06 +0000, Ronald H. Nicholson Jr. wrote:
> 
> Get yourself a Linux machine (x86 obviously, not Linux on PPC) to run your
> FPGA development environment. You can use the Mac as an X-Server, but
> thats as close as you are going to be able to get. It's inconceivable that
> the FPGA or CAE companies would add a third platform.  

Well, that's nice in theory, but certainly with the Wind/U toolkit it's 
a no-go. Some X widgets (especially pulldown menus) are rendered in the 
top-left corner of the screen, and the first choice is unavailable. In 
other cases, the program simply crashes with a BadAccess error.

I have a dual 2.5GHz box, running Tiger with a linux machine sitting 
next to it, and a DVI KVM switchbox to switch between the two. I use the 
linux box for FPGA work, and the mac for everything else - it's nice to 
have one of the Apple 23" monitors though - especially when opening 
floorplanner :-)

The Linux box is significantly faster than the Mac anyway - a single 
2.4GHz Opteron is about 2x as fast as a dual (I think it doesn't use 
both processors) 2.5 GHz Mac, at least in my experience.

Simon

Article: 84362
Subject: Re: Registers replication on Xilinx IOBs
From: "Avrum" <noasvpraumm@nospamsympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 21:27:15 -0400
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
In this case, the replication of the flip-flop is architecturally required
in order to satisfy the iob=true attribute.

The Q output of the output flip-flops in the IOBs connect ONLY to the output
driver for the pin. There is NO other route available to this signal - it
MUST go off chip. Since your HDL specifies connectivity both to the output
pin as well as to internal logic, the synthesis tools must replicate them.

Since the Q output of the IOB flip flop cannot connect to internal logic,
and you have specified that the flip-flop driving the output pin must be in
the IOB, the tools have to create two flip flops; one internally in the
"core" of the FPGA (in a slice), so that the Q output of this flip flop can
drive the internal connections you have asked for, and a second one in the
IOB to drive the output pin.

Avrum

<giachella.g@laben.it> wrote in message
news:1116313518.015049.170990@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Dear all,
> when synthesizing my design with XST, i get some messages like this
> one;
> "Flip-flop ... has been replicated 1 time(s) to handle iob=true
> attribute".
> The replicated flip-flops have their output shared between internal
> logic and IO pins. I understand that this replication could improve IO
> performances and that is the reason for adding such flip-flops on IOB.
> Am I right ?
>
> Moreover, both XST and Precision RTL show the same behavior in
> synthesis (under the default synthesis settings), so it seems this
> replication is strongly recommended. Can someone clarify this point ?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Giuseppe
>



Article: 84363
Subject: Re: Registers replication on Xilinx IOBs
From: Jeremy Stringer <jeremy@_NO_MORE_SPAM_endace.com>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 13:32:32 +1200
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
giachella.g@laben.it wrote:
> The replicated flip-flops have their output shared between internal
> logic and IO pins. I understand that this replication could improve IO
> performances and that is the reason for adding such flip-flops on IOB.
> Am I right ?
> 
> Moreover, both XST and Precision RTL show the same behavior in
> synthesis (under the default synthesis settings), so it seems this
> replication is strongly recommended. Can someone clarify this point ?

If you place all flip-flops on a bus in the IOBs, then the only timing 
stuff you have to worry about is the clock to out parameter (with maybe 
a bit of clock skew, package skew - small effects).  If you don't put 
them in the IOBs then they are somewhere in the fabric - with 
potentially widely varying times to get from the flip-flop to your 
output.  Secondly, if they are in the general fabric and they are not 
locked down, then their position may vary across synthesis/p&r runs, 
generating inconsistant results.

Jeremy

Article: 84364
Subject: VHDL array question
From: "randomdude@gmail.com" <randomdude@gmail.com>
Date: 17 May 2005 19:01:39 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi there, I'm having a bit of confusion using arrays in VHDL.

I know I can:

type heap is array (0 to 800) of std_logic;
signal que: heap;
...
que(0)<='1';
que(1)<='1';
...
que(7)<='1';

to set 8 bits of an array, but is there a way of setting all 8 bits at
once? Something like que(0 to 7)='11111111' which I thought I could do,
but can't.
And how does the string type work? I was first trying to do this using
it ( que(0)='a' ) , but I don't understand how to address single bits
(I'm making an RS232 port so I need to.).

Also.. if anyone can recommend some good (hobbyist/student priced)
books, that would be appreciated.

Another question I've been meaning to ask for a while - on
optimization. Is it the general rule in VHDL that making the entire
project in a schematic would be more efficient, but hellishly complex?
Or is it (similar to C, arguably) the consensus that the compiler (is
that the right word?) can optimize more effectivly at that level, and
the coder should concentrate on algorithms? Or is it a religeous
argument I shouldn't get in to? ;)

Ta muchly.

-Alan/Randomdude


Article: 84365
Subject: Re: Auto-select clock for virtual pins
From: "Vaughn Betz" <no_spam@altera.com>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 22:19:19 -0400
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Andre,

The syntax of the assignment you made looks wrong to me.  You want to set a 
"virtual pin clock" on some "virtual pin", say Pin_name1 (name from your 
original post).  The syntax for that is:

To           Assignment name      Value    Enabled

Pin_name1   Virtual Pin Clock   clk_90_sys   Yes

Note that I changed the "To" value to the name of the virtual pin.  The 
assignment above says "make virtual pin Pin_name1 use signal clk_90_sys as 
its clock.

Hope this helps.

Vaughn
[v b e t z (at) altera.com]


<ALuPin@web.de> wrote in message 
news:1116319794.571927.286760@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Answered last question by myself.

I have made the virtual clock pin assignment
in the Assignment Editor.

To           Assignment name      Value    Enabled

clk_90_sys   Virtual Pin Clock   clk_90_sys   Yes


And yet when compiling the design I get the warnings described
in my first post.

The problem is that I NEED the virtual pins to be registered
and therefore clocked because
I want to have a look at them
with SignalTapII. Or is that a problem because of using
virtual pins ?

Rgds
André



Article: 84366
Subject: Re: "Mine is bigger than yours..."
From: "jtw" <wrightjt @hotmail.invalid>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 02:19:22 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>

"Paul Leventis (at home)" <paulleventis-news@yahoo.ca> wrote in message 
news:PaudnRAmKPtWBhTfRVn-vA@rogers.com...
> Hi Peter,
>
-snip-
> The short version is that Adaptive Logic Module (ALM) can do 2 4-LUTs 
> (like a Slice or 2 Stratix LEs), but also can do a 5-LUT + 3-LUT, 6-LUT, 
> and other more powerful combinations (such as 2 6-LUTs that share 4 
> inputs, etc). When you technology map a design into a specific look-up 
> table (LUT) size, you get a variety of LUT sizes -- you can't map all the 
> logic to use exactly 4-inputs (for example).  Since you have a 
> distribution of LUT sizes, the capability to pair more than just 2 4-LUTs 
> into a single ALM will result in a decrease in the number of ALMs 
> required.
>
> Regards,
>
> Paul Leventis
> Altera Corp.
>
> P.S. Ours is bigger -- and we can use it better too!
As a frequent Xilinx user (4K, Virtex-2, V2P, soon V4), I note that in the 
slice (2 4-input LUTs), there is also available a 3-input LUT following 
those two.  That LUT can be fed the input of [at least] one independent 
input (besides the outputs from the two 4-input LUTs), creating the 
opportunity to broaden the input set with minimal cost (delay, routing.)  I 
have also extensively used the distributed RAM (sometimes as ROM), and 
occasionally the SLR function.

I also have had occasion to use Altera, although not lately.  In '96 I had a 
design where Altera had the appropriate solution (love those embedded block 
RAMs, which Xilinx now has--features may vary), but in '97 I had a design 
where Xilinx was better from a planning perspective (read:  growth path.)

Over the past 10+ years, I've had to get "under the hood" of the Xilinx 
tools:  hand floorplanning, extensive timing constraints, reading lots of 
app notes.  So you could say that I'm fairly comfortable with their 
architecture(s) and tools.  However, I'd have to agree with some previous 
posters:  if you think you have a challenging design, evaluate what you can 
before committing.  That's what I have done in the past, and prefer to do in 
the future (though usually, I'm stuck with a pre-determined selection.) 
Typically, you can budget key resources (be that memory, LUTs, registers, 
multipliers, pins, ...)   You can also do a test-case design that tests the 
anticipated critical path.  The same principle applies for synthesis and 
simulation tools, too.

Jason 



Article: 84367
Subject: Re: "Mine is bigger than yours..."
From: "Vaughn Betz" <no_spam@altera.com>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 22:28:12 -0400
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi Edwin,

I'm glad you had a positive experience with Quartus and Stratix II.

I'm sorry to hear you got an unroute in one of your compiles though.  I'd 
greatly appreciate it if you could send me the design, so my team can take a 
crack at routing it.  We don't have very many unroutes these days, even at 
very high logic utilization, so case studies like this are very useful for 
improving our tools. We would use the design only to tune our tools, will 
never release it outside Altera, and frankly we won't understand your design 
as anything but a place and route problem instance anyway :).

It's most likely we can route it in house with more "routability tuned" 
compiler settings, which we will send back to you as well.

Regards,

Vaughn Betz
[v b e t z (at) altera.com]







Article: 84368
Subject: Re: About back annotated simulations...
From: "Vaughn Betz" <no_spam@altera.com>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 22:45:11 -0400
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Mike,

I definitely agree that STA provides 100% coverage, if you get all the 
constraints correct.  But there are many designs where the constraints are 
incomplete, or may not be completely correct, and in those cases timing 
simulation provides some level of back-up test.

In designs with multicycles & cut paths set that I think there's value to 
simulating to double-check you didn't cut or multicycle something you 
shouldn't have. Generally such constraints are set manually, and hence there 
is the possibility of an error in entering them.  Of course, a timing 
simulation is not guaranteed to catch a problem even if you did make a 
mistake, but if you can afford the time, it may catch an issue.

Most designs I see use asynchronous clears, and don't set a recovery and 
removal timing constraint to make sure the reset release occurs sufficiently 
far from a clock edge for the design to come out of reset cleanly. You can 
design things such that everything works even if you wouldn't pass a 
recovery & removal timing analysis, but again, if you don't know exactly 
what you're doing, or you make a mistake, you can get into trouble without 
this constraint.  Timing simulation provides some level of back-up, although 
it's definitely a poor substitute for a disciplined reset strategy and a 
static timing analysis on it.

Regards,

Vaughn
Altera
[v b e t z (at) altera.com]




"Mike Treseler" <mike_treseler@comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:3eva9tF570msU1@individual.net...
> Fred C wrote:
>> About back annotated simulations ...what are their really use for ?
>
> Evaluating synthesis tools.
> Debugging synthesis problems.
>
>> For several years, I developped and succesfully used FPGA(Xilinx,
>> Altera, Actel) designed with strongs Static Timing analyses, with a good
>> constraint coverage and only some lite back annotated simulations.
>> After some recent discussions, I'm looking for external experiences that
>> can prove me that back-annotated simulations in min/typ/max timings are
>> not only better for design verification - I'm convinced of this-, but
>> are necessary, even if done with the static timing analyses.
>
> If you're already convinced, why pose the question?
>
>> Is there something I missed ?
>
> STA provides 100% timing verification
> for synchronous designs in much less
> time than a back-annotated simulation requires.
>
>
>        -- Mike Treseler 



Article: 84369
Subject: Re: Registers replication on Xilinx IOBs
From: "Marc Randolph" <mrand@my-deja.com>
Date: 17 May 2005 19:53:08 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>

Avrum wrote:
> In this case, the replication of the flip-flop is architecturally
required
> in order to satisfy the iob=true attribute.
>
> The Q output of the output flip-flops in the IOBs connect ONLY to the
output
> driver for the pin. There is NO other route available to this signal
- it
> MUST go off chip.

Howdy Avrum,

Actually there is a route available - how else would bi-directional
I/O's work?  It's true that the tools typically don't do this (probably
for signal integrity and prop delay time reasons), but it can be done.

Have fun,  

   Marc


Article: 84370
Subject: Re: Bullshit Achieves Literary Status
From: John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 20:57:59 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On 16 May 2005 14:50:26 -0700, "Peter Alfke" <peter@xilinx.com> wrote:

>"Unlike a liar, who knows the truth and wants to keep people away from
>it, the bullshitter exhibits a complete lack of concern in
>differentiating between truth and falsehood.
>What matters to the bullshitter is: will it further my aims?"
>
>As Frankfurt writes in his book,
>"It's impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the
>truth.
>Producing bullshit requires no such conviction."
>This lack of concern for the truth - which even the liar must exhibit
>in order to lie - is what makes b.s. a greater enemy of the truth
>than lies, he believes.
>
>"On B.S.", by Professor Harry G Frankfurt, is published by Pinceton
>University Press
>
>posted by Peter Alfke, speaking for himself


Well, sure. The easiest person to lie to is yourself.

John


Article: 84371
Subject: Detaching the schematic viewer under ISE Webpack
From: "Geogle" <georgevarughese@indiatimes.com>
Date: 17 May 2005 22:02:19 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Just wondering if it is possible to detach the schematic
viewer from the main ise window. (in 7.1i or so.)
Also is it possible to configure a third party tool for
viewing the schematic ?

I know that it is possible to configure the text editor.
But is it possible for the schematic viewer too ?

Thanks,
George


Article: 84372
Subject: Re: Detaching the schematic viewer under ISE Webpack
From: "Antti Lukats" <antti@openchip.org>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 07:09:14 +0200
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
"Geogle" <georgevarughese@indiatimes.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1116392539.922971.178880@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Just wondering if it is possible to detach the schematic
> viewer from the main ise window. (in 7.1i or so.)
> Also is it possible to configure a third party tool for
> viewing the schematic ?
>
> I know that it is possible to configure the text editor.
> But is it possible for the schematic viewer too ?
>
> Thanks,
> George
>
ASFAIK, NO

Antti



Article: 84373
Subject: Re: Tristate-Master-Slave testbench description
From: ALuPin@web.de
Date: 18 May 2005 00:15:58 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Yes, I tried it, and it works.

Thank you for your help :o)

Rgds
Andr=E9
Duane Clark schrieb:
> ALuPin@web.de wrote:
> > ...
> >  t_Bidir_data <=3D t_tx_data when t_drive_tx_data=3D'1' else (others =
=3D>
> > 'Z');
> >  t_rx_data    <=3D t_Bidir_data when t_drive_tx_data=3D'0' else (others
=3D>
> > '0');
> > ...
> >
> > My question :
> > In the port map
> > Bidir_data =3D> t_Bidir_data
> >
> > an INOUT port of the unit under test is connected to a signal
within
> > the testbench.
> >
> > Will the Tristate Description shown work ? (Which "direction  does
> > "t_Bidir_data" have ?)
> > The testbench "t_tx_data" generation takes over the tristate bus
master
> > role.
> >
>
> Did you just try it? That would be the easy thing to do. Sure, it
will
> work. There is normally no reason to tristate the receive data. Just
do
>=20
> t_rx_data    <=3D t_Bidir_data;


Article: 84374
Subject: Re: VHDL array question
From: "Jochen" <JFrensch@HarmanBecker.com>
Date: 18 May 2005 00:30:14 -0700
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
what about

   http://www.8ung.at/raimy/study/vhdl/FAQ1.html#0

Jochen




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