Re: [f-cpu] Yet Another Upload

[Michael Riepe <michael@stud.uni-hannover.de>]

On Sun, Apr 20, 2003 at 02:30:20AM +0200, Yann Guidon wrote:
[...]
> >>I am more worried about the correct work of the general scripts and what 
> >>they can do now.
> >>    
> >>
> >Which scripts do you mean?
> >  
> >
> the ones that builds all the files from m4, verify the available tools,
> build the units and run their tests....

Oh, you mean the scripts I don't use ;)

I'd really like to get rid of m4.  In particular, I don't like the fact
that we have to run m4 every time we modify the configuration.  I prefer
to change the VHDL sources directly.  C headers can be generated from
VHDL -- all we need is a procedure that takes all the definitions and
prints them in C format.  Since VHDL has text i/o capabilities, that
shouldn't be too hard to do.  (Note that it would also work the other
way round -- edit C and generate VHDL -- but since VHDL is our primary
source, I prefer to generate the C stuff.)  Of course we must distribute
pre-built C headers, in case someone has no VHDL tools and wants to
install only the software.  But that's not a problem either.

For the build system, a mix of Makefiles and supporting shell scripts
is probably the best choice.  In the end, I want to be able to just
unpack the files, type `configure' and `make', and let the automated
build system deal with the boring details.

[vanilla tests]
> yup but you could try to do this at least once, one night or week,
> just to be sure ....

I'm currently doing that, but it's too slow to be done on a regular
basis (unless you have a server that runs 24/7).

[...]
> but you know that Riviera and NCSIM are one order of magnitude faste, 
> right ?

But I don't have them, and I probably never will.

[...]
> >We better do things step by step.  First, we'll have to decide which
> >instructions we're going to use in FC0,
> >
> well, the units are here, so let's simply use them to their fullest.

That's what I wanted to hear :)

> >and which of them will be
> >mandatory for later versions (this applies to all units, not only
> >the adder).
> >
> hmmm that's another problem....
> 
> >Second, all instructions should be properly documented in
> >the manual.
> >
> ouch :-)

Well, it must be done, whether we like it or not.  VHDL code, manual
and emulators are badly desynced.  I'll take care of the emulators,
and I think it would be wise to review the manual pages as well --
at least those corresponding to the EUs I wrote myself.  I just need a
copy of the current sources.

> >Third, I'll have to update the assembler and the emulator.
> >Finally, someone can update the machine description for gcc.
> >
> As you probably know, i have returned back to plain old electronics to get
> some pocket money from time to time. Now, i have almost all tools to make
> decent PCBs in small series at decent prices. When the first FC0s will 
> come out
> of fundry, we'll be able to use nice development kits :-)

Will they run Linux? ;)

> But there is still too much work to be done on the SW side; so we'll 
> have to "wait a bit" ...

Hmm... we have a gcc port, an assembler, a linker and two emulators.
That's all SW people need in the first place.  I'm currently concentrating
on the HW side again -- since many people can do SW development but
only few seem to be able to write VHDL code, I won't waste my time doing
software development (of course I'll maintain my software, but VHDL has
higher priority now).

-- 
 Michael "Tired" Riepe <Michael.Riepe@stud.uni-hannover.de>
 "All I wanna do is have a little fun before I die"
*************************************************************
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to majordomo@seul.org with
unsubscribe f-cpu       in the body. http://f-cpu.seul.org/