[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [f-cpu] "Tree"
Juergen Goeritz wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Ben Franchuk wrote:
> > What I think what the F-cpu needs now is the documentation revised
> > and a software emulator written for the ISA. Until you write software
> > you really don't know if your architecture is sound. For my own small
> > CPU's I like developing between the ISA and the RTL levels. I developed
> > a nice 9 bit CPU on the ISA level only to discover at the software level
> > the design sucked and at the RTL level it used more FPGA logic cells
> > than my other 12 bit CPU's.
> > --
> > Ben Franchuk - Dawn * 12/24 bit cpu *
> Hi Ben,
> since two years my brain is thinking back and forth how one
> can integrate the design process of software together with
> the design of the hardware to begin to build 'real' systems.
> SystemC does not really bring a solution to the problem
> because one is still on a hardware type programming style.
> And hardware type programming in software sucks.
I agree on this last sentence ! This is one reason why i
don't program a F-CPU simulator and prefer to do it with
the "real stuff", in VHDL.
> There seems to be a need for a more high sophisticated
> description language that is a superset of hardware and
> software implementation but without forcing the style to
> either of them. I would call this a 'system definition
> language'. This language must also contain some means
> to simulate the system on its highest level.
> If you look at hardware development, there is e.g. VHDL
> high level description and the netlist/gate level. I am
> looking for that level above VHDL that can be generated
> into hardware (e.g. VHDL) and software (e.g. C, C++).
> Only with that independent level you are really free to
> move the border between hardware and software during the
> development process to achieve a maximum performance of
> the system in design.
The highest level i know is an algorithm. This is what
defines the rest. But there's a trap here ! I don't know
a way to define an algorithm without defining an
implementation at the same time. I guess it's a burden
that is inherited from the "langages". My solution is
to not use langages and moving the HW/SW border becomes
easier. Don't underestimate the power of your brain :-)
To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to email@example.com with
unsubscribe f-cpu in the body. http://f-cpu.seul.org/