tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17864065.post-86272484047119885532008-06-16T16:10:00.007-04:002008-06-16T17:26:32.682-04:00The C/C++/SystemC to RTL solutions continually emphasize to the press and analysts (as well to prospective customers) that they are based on standards. When I saw John Cooley seeming to repeat this position in his <a href="http://www.deepchip.com/gadfly/gad060608.html">Cheesy DAC</a> list, I wanted to respond. I sent <a href="http://www.deepchip.com/wiretap/080606.html">an email to John outlining the 5 questions that I'd ask any one of these vendors</a> before buying into this "we're a standard" position.<br /><br />In addition to these five questions, I've since thought of a sixth:<br /><br />6. How much training and/or applications support is required to learn how to properly structure and write code for efficient synthesis results?<br /><br />I'm not claiming that we are more "standard" than these solutions are -- but I am claiming that, with only one exception, there is no fundamental difference in how proprietary these solutions are.<br /><br />There are a lot of potential terrific benefits to going with a standard, e.g.:<br />* Training<br />* Portability and reusability of designs<br /><br />I don't think these apply to the C/C++/SystemC synthesis solutions. I think there's only one real "standards"-related benefit to the C/C++/SystemC to RTL technologies: you can functionally simulate the designs with standard compilers and, in the case of SystemC, free simulators. But this has nothing to do with the tools nor with the "hardware" aspects of a design: cycle-accurate simulation and synthesis. None of these solutions have a level of standardization that will significantly reduce tool-specific training or deliver design portability across vendors -- which I believe are the main reason you go with standards. Without this, then these solutions are proprietary.<br /><br />And, once you get past this smoke screen, the interesting questions are around the benefits, applicability and quality of results.George Harperhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12782319843580094075noreply@blogger.com0