4 ms·
My experience (http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/security/ctsrd/cheri.html http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/security/ctsrd/cheri.html, http://netfpga.org/10G_spe
by deadgrey19 12y ago
My experience (http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/security/ctsrd/cheri.html http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/security/ctsrd/cheri.html, http://netfpga.org/10G_specs.html http://netfpga.org/10G_specs.html) is that both of the toolchains are terrible on both of the platforms.
Xilinx and Altera keep trying to convince us that they are software vendors, when in actual fact they are hardware vendors. Rarely is a company good at both.
- swetland 12y agoThat the toolchains run on Linux at all at least prevents one from being forced to use Windows, which is a plus, but yes, the state of FPGA tools is pretty horrible. It reminds me of the days of proprietary vendor compilers where every platform vendor had their own subtly incompatible and/or differently buggy C or C++ compiler. In this way the FPGA development model is a decade or two behind software workflows.
- skylan_q 12y agoI've explored the Xilinx tools extensively during graduate school. It was by far the most complicated thing I've ever had the misfortune of using. I remember there being far too many tools and features that overlap in function and purpose to that point that none of the tools were great.
- mc_electron 12y agoI guess I was mainly trying to say that the Linux version was similar to the Windows version, it's not Windows-only as the previous comment indicated. But right, your other comments are all valid.