Re: gEDA: Xilinx unified libraries

[Stephen Williams <steve-at-NOSPAMicarus_dot_com>]

hamish@debian.org said:
> Or EDIF? The Xilinx tools prefer EDIF input these days, I believe. But
> I remember discussions about cost problems with obtaining the EDIF
> specification.

The EDIF specification I have, the problem is that Xilinx hasn't
publicly documented how to expression Xilinx specific things in EDIF
and they do *not* support the LPM.

So it's not a problem of specification but one of seeing examples of
EDIF files that xilinx tools accept, and discerning from that how to
express the unified library. In the end it may prove easy, but I personally
don't want to go down that path yet.

EDIF is interesting to me for other reasons, specifically as a way for
open source HDLs, schematic editors and simulators to communicate, but
that is an entirely different tack. For now, I'm happy that XNF does
the job I need done.
-- 
Steve Williams                "The woods are lovely, dark and deep.
steve@icarus.com              But I have promises to keep,
steve@picturel.com            and lines to code before I sleep,
http://www.picturel.com       And lines to code before I sleep."