[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: gEDA-dev: VHDL Interchange
On Tuesday 03 April 2007 17:57, Peter Clifton wrote:
> Net-segments on schematics are not drawn with simulation in
> mind.
Stop thinking Spice for simulation.
> I guess if you back-export from PCB, you can consider
> traces as components which could be simulated, but there is
> no direct link between a schematic net (list of connections
> between circuit elements) and those traces.
That's what the alternative architectures are for.
There will also be an architecture for Spice, so the system will
support ng-spice. Gnucap doesn't need it.
> Shame.. I rather liked VHDL, but I guess they are equivalent
> in terms of their function.
Actually VHDL is better in this case, because
entity/architecture is a language supported concept.
A while back, I commented on VHDL being "Hardware Description
Language" and Verilog being a simulation and verification
language.
That comment is not intended to be critical of either. I have
worked with people on both committees, and as a member of a
Verilog-AMS committee. The difference is true. Ask them.
They will tell you that.
Discussion with the VHDL people centered around hardware
description. They try to accomodate simulation, but it was
clear that hardware description in general was first on their
mind. In contrast, in discussion with Verilog people it was
clear that verification and simulation were first on their
mind, with general hardware description a bit distant.
In this case, only the structural subset is used, and there is a
direct mapping.
I am thinking that the translators could be designed as a pair
of gnucap language plugins, which will translate syntax without
changing content. In some cases there would be another that
would generate alternate archtectures. It's looking pretty
good, and easy. We will see what develops.
_______________________________________________
geda-dev mailing list
geda-dev@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-dev