Site Home   Archive Home   FAQ Home   How to search the Archive   How to Navigate the Archive   
Compare FPGA features and resources   

Threads starting:
1994JulAugSepOctNovDec1994
1995JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1995
1996JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1996
1997JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1997
1998JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1998
1999JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1999
2000JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2000
2001JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2001
2002JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2002
2003JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2003
2004JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2004
2005JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2005
2006JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2006
2007JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2007
2008JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2008
2009JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2009
2010JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2010
2011JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2011
2012JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2012
2013JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2013
2014JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2014
2015JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2015
2016JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2016
2017JanFebMarApr2017

Authors:A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Custom Search

Messages from 39150

Article: 39150
Subject: Re: Intel vs. AMD
From: VR <invalid@invalid.invalid>
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 00:15:47 +0000 (UTC)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
emanuel stiebler <emu@> wrote:
> VR wrote:
>> 
>> I have a new AMD "XP 1700+" (1.6GHz) 

> Sorry, but the "XP 1700+" is clocked at 1.47 GHz ;-)

You are correct. I was also dealing with a "1900+" system which does run @
1.6GHz.

My mistake.

Thanks,
VR.

Article: 39151
Subject: Re: Linking IP
From: hamish@cloud.net.au
Date: 02 Feb 2002 06:26:07 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Ray Andraka <ray@andraka.com> wrote:
> the design for the simulator to plug in for the black box.  One option, the one
> that seems the easiest, is to use the mapped output from the synthesis (in
> synplicity that is the *.vhm file).  It is about as readable as the edif, and

I had some problems with the Synplify VHDL output. Firstly if you use
any device primitives directly in your design (hard to avoid with
DCMs, RAMs etc), you need to edit the generated VHDL to specify
what library the simulation models are found in (ie add
"library unisim" to every architecture in the output code).
It'd be nice if you could tell Synplify to include some libraries
for you automatically.

Secondly it appeared to put 100 ps delay on all signals generated
inside processes etc. I guess this is to avoid race conditions but
it's a bit simplistic and I ran in to some trouble (although I
can't remember the details off the top of my head).

In comparison, it's easier (in my experience) to get code from 
Xilinx NGD2VHDL working, with or without SDF annotation.

regards
Hamish
-- 
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <hamish@debian.org> <hamish@cloud.net.au>

Article: 39152
Subject: Re: MUX with or without clk ??
From: hamish@cloud.net.au
Date: 02 Feb 2002 06:37:22 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Antonio <dottavio@ised.it> wrote:
> May I know why if a use this demux in a project I've a maximum
> frequency
> of 50MHz while if I take away the clock from this demux the maximum 
> frequency of the project arrive to 155MHz.
> There's a well known reason ??

It could be your use of the negative edge of the clock. If the input
signals (sel and in_mux) come from the flip-flops triggered by the
rising edge of the clock, or the output signals (out_1, out_2, out_3)
go to flip-flops triggered by the rising edge of the clock, then
your maximum frequency is generally halved.

> By the way here it is also the response of XST, the inferring of 30
> D-type flip-flops is due to
>                                when others  =>    null;
> there are alternative to not use these flip flop or is better to have
> them ???

You have a clocked process, so you will always have flip flops. 
The others statement is not the source of extra flip flops.

>    Found 10-bit register for signal <out_2>.
>    Summary:
>        inferred  30 D-type flip-flop(s).
> Unit <demux_3x10> synthesized.

>                out_0, out_1, out_2 :   out std_logic_vector(9 downto 0)

Here are your 30 flip flops, 3 vectors of 10 bits each.

>        process (sel, in_mux, clk)

in_mux and sel should not be in the sensitivity list, as your
process is not sensitive to them (only to the clock).

If you don't think this process should generate flip flops,
it probably doesn't do what you want it to do. It probably
shouldn't be using the negative clock edge, either.


Hamish
-- 
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <hamish@debian.org> <hamish@cloud.net.au>

Article: 39153
(removed)


Article: 39154
(removed)


Article: 39155
(removed)


Article: 39156
Subject: Re: Read Only Register
From: "Falk Brunner" <Falk.Brunner@gmx.de>
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 13:02:32 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
"Dave Brown" <dbrown12@home.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:a3f6qe$el2$1@pallas.novatel.ca...

> return this constant on the databus when a specific address shows up on
the
> address bus. I currently just use an output mux, and when the select
signal
> is right, I just return a constant 8 bit value. This doesn't seem to be
> working reliably in the synthesized device, yet it simulates fine. Am I
> missing something, or does the problem lie elsewhere? Here's a snippet to
> show what I'm trying to do:

The code is correct, except that you values go ta a dataBUS, means there is
most probably more than one device attatched. So you need a tristate buffer,
controlled by chip select (which also be derived form the address bus)

data_out<=y when cs='0' else "ZZZZZZZZ";    -- low active chip select

--
MfG
Falk





Article: 39157
Subject: Re: glitchless clock enable/disable in spartanII
From: Rick Filipkiewicz <rick@algor.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 13:03:32 +0000
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>


Philip Freidin wrote:

> On Fri, 01 Feb 2002 01:09:32 +0000, Rick Filipkiewicz <rick@algor.co.uk> wrote:
> >*BUT*
> >
> >I've always had one caveat about that apps note. The `metastab catching window' is quoted
> >as 0.1nsec but the data book setup times for the XC4005E FFs were much larger. Does this
> >mean that  the hold times quoted as 0 were/are in fact negative ?
>
> The `metastab catching window' is also the window in which the FF actually
> samples the D (and CE) input and decides what to do. If new data is valid
> before the start of the window, the FF catches the new data. If the new
> data changes after the window, the FF catches the data value prior to the
> new data.
>
> The window slides around based on temp, voltage, device age, phase of moon,
> Dv/Dt of the data signal, Dv/Dt of the clock signal, what the async reset
> has done recently, and what the current FF state is.
> The data sheet numbers for setup and hold give a bounded limit for how far
> the window can wander. ( it wanders around during normal operation, but
> within these limits).
>
> So reality is that 'setup' and 'hold' do not actually exist. By specifying
> these values, and designing to them, you get reliable system behaviour
> regardless as to where the window is at the time of the clock signal.
>
> So getting to your question, the FFs are designed so that if every thing
> conspires to make the window as late as possible, the end of the window
> will be no later than 0.0 ns after the clock (which gives hold time of
> 0.0 ns).
>
> Similarly, if everything conspires to make the window as early as possible,
> the beginnining of the windo will be no earlier than the setup time before
> the clock.
>
> You could read more on this at:
>
>    http://www.fpga-faq.com/FAQ_Pages/0017_Tell_me_about_metastables.htm
>
> Philip
> Philip Freidin
> Fliptronics

I'd read that, IMO real nice, FAQ some while ago. My query was not that the `catching window'
was shorter than the nominal setup time but that it was so much shorter. Re-reading the FAQ
reminded me that, of course, the real window size is largely determined by the charging time
of the `input' under whatever conditions are present at the time the `D' signal changes.
Clearly this is going to be a lot smaller than the worst case Tsu+Thld esp. for modern fine
geometry devices.

If Peter's claim of a few picosec. for modern Virtex devices is correct then XAPP094
understates the MTBF (assuming K2 unchanged) by an order of magnitude or so but this largely
irrelevant as the MTBF is completely dominated by the resolution time function.

Going back to my PCISignal-> 100MHz clock domain case and:

o Assuming that the PCI signal is not happening at PCI rate but, say, 1/6th of this.

o The `catching window' has come down to 20psec from the 100 in XAPP094.

o There has been a modest K2 increase to 25.

o I make a 1.2nsec allowance for metastab decay [in the real system its much bigger than
this].

I get an MTBF of about 62 years. Hence, while knowing full well that metstability is always
with us, I do tend to align myself with Peter A's pragmatic approach to the seriousness of the
problem. For example a well placed & routed double synchoniser running at 200MHz is still
likely to have 2-3 nsec. of slack and the MTBF in the test case is now (for 2 nsec.) going to
be 1.4*10^10 years.
Exponentials are wonderful things when they're on your side.

Against all this is, of course, Mr. Murphy who will ensure that, no matter how unlikely,  the
1-in-10billion error happens just at the critical point of V2 for an aircraft taking off or
when the surgeon really needs to know the patients blood pressure or ...



Article: 39158
Subject: Re: Linking IP
From: allan_herriman.hates.spam@agilent.com (Allan Herriman)
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 14:43:41 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
On 02 Feb 2002 06:26:07 GMT, hamish@cloud.net.au wrote:

>Ray Andraka <ray@andraka.com> wrote:
>> the design for the simulator to plug in for the black box.  One option, the one
>> that seems the easiest, is to use the mapped output from the synthesis (in
>> synplicity that is the *.vhm file).  It is about as readable as the edif, and
>
>I had some problems with the Synplify VHDL output. Firstly if you use
>any device primitives directly in your design (hard to avoid with
>DCMs, RAMs etc), you need to edit the generated VHDL to specify
>what library the simulation models are found in (ie add
>"library unisim" to every architecture in the output code).
>It'd be nice if you could tell Synplify to include some libraries
>for you automatically.
>
>Secondly it appeared to put 100 ps delay on all signals generated
>inside processes etc. I guess this is to avoid race conditions but
>it's a bit simplistic and I ran in to some trouble (although I
>can't remember the details off the top of my head).

I can :)   In a high speed design the 100ps may overestimate the real
delay and the total delay on a path may sum to greater than your clock
period.  This causes problems in simulation.

One fix is to edit all the 100ps delays and change them to 10ps.  This
takes a few seconds in a text editor.

>In comparison, it's easier (in my experience) to get code from 
>Xilinx NGD2VHDL working, with or without SDF annotation.

I agree.

Sometimes you will need to simulate the output of the synthesiser to
work out which tool is introducing a bug into your design.

Regards,
Allan

Article: 39159
Subject: Re: Linking IP
From: Ray Andraka <ray@andraka.com>
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 15:42:45 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
I've been going the *.vhm route.  The only primitives I've had trouble with lately
are the ROM16 and ROM32 primitives, the others (notably the DLLs and RAMB4's) that
used to cause problems are apparently OK now without the added unisim.  I've had an
open case with synplicity for some time with this issue.  In the mean time, I've been
just replace all to replace every instance of library synplify with the added unisim
library lines.  The advantage with using the mapped output instead of the NGD is that
you can then distribute a sim model with an edif netlist for a macro that is intended
to be used in a larger design without having to go through the xilinx tools to get
it.

hamish@cloud.net.au wrote:

> Ray Andraka <ray@andraka.com> wrote:
> > the design for the simulator to plug in for the black box.  One option, the one
> > that seems the easiest, is to use the mapped output from the synthesis (in
> > synplicity that is the *.vhm file).  It is about as readable as the edif, and
>
> I had some problems with the Synplify VHDL output. Firstly if you use
> any device primitives directly in your design (hard to avoid with
> DCMs, RAMs etc), you need to edit the generated VHDL to specify
> what library the simulation models are found in (ie add
> "library unisim" to every architecture in the output code).
> It'd be nice if you could tell Synplify to include some libraries
> for you automatically.
>
> Secondly it appeared to put 100 ps delay on all signals generated
> inside processes etc. I guess this is to avoid race conditions but
> it's a bit simplistic and I ran in to some trouble (although I
> can't remember the details off the top of my head).
>
> In comparison, it's easier (in my experience) to get code from
> Xilinx NGD2VHDL working, with or without SDF annotation.
>
> regards
> Hamish
> --
> Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <hamish@debian.org> <hamish@cloud.net.au>

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930     Fax 401/884-7950
email ray@andraka.com
http://www.andraka.com

 "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
  temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
                                          -Benjamin Franklin, 1759



Article: 39160
Subject: PAR prediction
From: "AMID GUBTA" <none@mediaone.net>
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 18:52:51 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Hi,
Does anyone knows about , any research going on for a Place and route
failure/success predictability for a Xilinx-Virtex architecture. Or
something related to the packing constraints one shd follow and can be sure
that the PAR wouldnt fail..
thanx
amit



Article: 39161
(removed)


Article: 39162
Subject: BRAM, clka too short setup time
From: "Hristo Stevic" <hristostev@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 23:27:39 +0000 (UTC)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
hello,

Really i can't see why i am getting this error message
bram.clka too short setup time, missing time 2.3ns!
bram.clkb too short setup time, missing time 2.3ns!

i am using bram in both read and write mode. the two ports are clocked
with the same clock, the master clock. one port is set always for
writing the other for reading. The address are always differents!

the Bram address as well as the input data are REGISTRED, clocked with
the same clock clk

so how can i get short setup time! i am using F3.1, sp7.
i have even set the data input to zero value, the same error happen, I
did timing simulation, the address values are as i expect (they change
the value after the clock rising edge)

the we,en, rst bram inputs are set to VCC, or GND as required , the
input data are registred in the IOB, so really what i am missing ? why i
am getting this error?

thanks


-- 
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Article: 39163
Subject: Re: BRAM, clka too short setup time
From: "Hristo Stevic" <hristostev@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 23:48:34 +0000 (UTC)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
want just to add the addresses values are so clean, no glitches
so why i am getting this problem?


-- 
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Article: 39164
Subject: LARGE ultra low power FPGA/CPLD recommendation
From: "Dr. Michael D. Foegelle" <NOSPAM_mfoegelle@austin.rr.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 00:00:44 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
I have a VHDL design that I need to run off of parasitic power (standby
current draw less than 300 microamps @ 3.3V).  I had intended to use
the Xilinx Coolrunner XPLA3, but I need the largest part (XCR3512XL)
which Xilinx had chosen not to manufacture in the XPLA3, but will have
samples on the Coolrunner II 512 part next August.  That's a bit late for
my needs!  I've been looking around, but haven't found much else that
looks like it's going to meet my standby current requirements.  I'm also
concerned about some of these SRAM/Flash FPGAs I've looked at
being able to handle the slow startup necessary for a parasitic power
application.  I don't need speed (max clock speed will be 1 MHz at
most), but I need LOW power!  And of course low active power is good
too!  =)  Any suggestions are greatly appreciated.  Please copy any
responses
to my e-mail.  Remove the NOSPAM_ header to reply.

Sincerely,

Dr. Michael D. Foegelle



Article: 39165
Subject: odd divider
From: ug <iwrt@jdavs.iofg>
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 18:20:45 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
in my project,my system clock is 100Mhz,but i need 33MHZ,20MHZ,14MHZ clock,that is ,i need 3,5,7 divider.how do i implement?

Article: 39166
Subject: solutions manuals, and no they are not for school
From: strut911@hotmail.com (strut911)
Date: 2 Feb 2002 21:12:38 -0800
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
hi all. 
i am wondering where one can get solutions manuals to textbooks.
before everyone attacks me as being a student looking for a method to
cheat, i am a practicing asic designer who is trying to learn more
about different algorithms and methods to solve problems. i am
interested in almost any kind of solutions manual, because it would
motivate me to go out and buy the book if i am interested in the
subject. working my way through problems without having a definite
understanding if i am on the right path or way off is quite difficult.
i am really interested in the fields of linear
programming/optimization, computer architecture (hennessy and
patterson book is awesome), numerical analysis, dsp(adaptive,
wavelets), algorithm design, or almost anything related or of
practical use to engineering. anything in the public domain, or freely
available, ie: out of print books sometimes offer manuals and book
online, or anything at all would be greatly appreciated.
thanks
strut911

Article: 39167
Subject: To Prevent Xilinx Mapper from Removing the RAMs in ISE 4.1i
From: Hitesh Brahmbhatt <hbrahmbh@san.rr.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 06:06:17 GMT
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>

Hi everyone,

I am unable to prevent Xilinx ISE 4.1i mapper from removing a RAM in my 
design. It is COREGEN generated DPRAM. I am running the mapper with
"map -u" option but it still insists on removing the RAM. Does anyone 
else have a similar problem? Is it a bug in ISE 4.1i and do I need a 
Service Pack for it or am I doing something wrong?

Any answers will be appreciated.

Thanks,

Hitesh


Article: 39168
Subject: Re: LARGE ultra low power FPGA/CPLD recommendation
From: Jim Granville <jim.granville@designtools.co.nz>
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 19:22:20 +1300
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
Dr. Michael D. Foegelle wrote:
> 
> I have a VHDL design that I need to run off of parasitic power (standby
> current draw less than 300 microamps @ 3.3V).  I had intended to use
> the Xilinx Coolrunner XPLA3, but I need the largest part (XCR3512XL)
> which Xilinx had chosen not to manufacture in the XPLA3, but will have
> samples on the Coolrunner II 512 part next August.  That's a bit late for
> my needs!  I've been looking around, but haven't found much else that
> looks like it's going to meet my standby current requirements.  I'm also
> concerned about some of these SRAM/Flash FPGAs I've looked at
> being able to handle the slow startup necessary for a parasitic power
> application.  I don't need speed (max clock speed will be 1 MHz at
> most), but I need LOW power!  And of course low active power is good
> too!  =)  Any suggestions are greatly appreciated.  Please copy any
> responses
> to my e-mail.  Remove the NOSPAM_ header to reply.

512 MC is at the top end of CPLD, so bottom end FPGA are likely to
be cheaper.

 Required is information on the StartUp ENGERY, which has not been
well explained. So, far, we have seen a relatively high PEAK 
current is needed on FPGA startup, and that can be addressed 
with a snap-action regulator.

 What you need, is the duration of that current ( Peter/Austin ?), to
determine what energy storage CAP is needed.

 Also, once that hurdle is over, there is a dynamic loading energy
budget
too  ( also on the Coolrunner, but a little hidden )
 This is the time to dump the NV storage block, into the config latches,
and will consume FLASH Icc and a clock Icc too.
After all that, then operating Icc energy will be **mA/MHz 

-jg

Article: 39169
Subject: Re: To Prevent Xilinx Mapper from Removing the RAMs in ISE 4.1i
From: "Falk Brunner" <Falk.Brunner@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 11:38:54 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
"Hitesh Brahmbhatt" <hbrahmbh@san.rr.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3C5CD14B.1050703@san.rr.com...

> I am unable to prevent Xilinx ISE 4.1i mapper from removing a RAM in my
> design. It is COREGEN generated DPRAM. I am running the mapper with

So the output of your DPRAM (or other control logic) is not connected to a
signal in your design. So all logic generating unused signals will be
removed.

--
MfG
Falk





Article: 39170
Subject: Re: odd divider
From: "Falk Brunner" <Falk.Brunner@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 11:41:09 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
"ug" <iwrt@jdavs.iofg> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:ee749e4.-1@WebX.sUN8CHnE...
> in my project,my system clock is 100Mhz,but i need 33MHZ,20MHZ,14MHZ
clock,that is ,i need 3,5,7 divider.how do i implement?

Just use a counter to generate a clock enable every 3dr, 5th, 7th cycle. and
use this as a clock enable for your low speed logic. You can also use a DLL
to divide by 3.

--
MfG
Falk





Article: 39171
Subject: Re: LARGE ultra low power FPGA/CPLD recommendation
From: "Falk Brunner" <Falk.Brunner@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 11:43:31 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
"Dr. Michael D. Foegelle" <NOSPAM_mfoegelle@austin.rr.com> schrieb im
Newsbeitrag news:M4%68.90808$XZ1.4073857@typhoon.austin.rr.com...

> most), but I need LOW power!  And of course low active power is good
> too!  =)  Any suggestions are greatly appreciated.  Please copy any

Xilinx is not the only vendor of CPLDs. Have a look at

www.lattice.com
www.actel.com

--
MfG
Falk





Article: 39172
Subject: Re: BRAM, clka too short setup time
From: "Falk Brunner" <Falk.Brunner@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 11:45:58 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
"Hristo Stevic" <hristostev@yahoo.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:90b177e23bcb6994a03990fbe4486893.52609@mygate.mailgate.org...
> want just to add the addresses values are so clean, no glitches
> so why i am getting this problem?

What the frequency of your clock? What FPGA do you use? If you have a big
part, the addresses must travel a long way over the chip and may be late.

--
MfG
Falk





Article: 39173
Subject: Re: BRAM, clka too short setup time
From: "Hristo Stevic" <hristostev@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 13:10:35 +0000 (UTC)
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>

> What the frequency of your clock? What FPGA do you use? If you have a big
> part, the addresses must travel a long way over the chip and may be late.

well i am simulating the funcationality of the BRAM apart. so it is the
only
component in my design. i have set the period in UCF file, i got ~155
MHz
i am simulating it with 80ns period
 




-- 
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Article: 39174
Subject: Re: LARGE ultra low power FPGA/CPLD recommendation
From: "Falk Brunner" <Falk.Brunner@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 16:10:06 +0100
Links: << >>  << T >>  << A >>
"Falk Brunner" <Falk.Brunner@gmx.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:a3j684$18f67u$3@ID-84877.news.dfncis.de...
> "Dr. Michael D. Foegelle" <NOSPAM_mfoegelle@austin.rr.com> schrieb im
> Newsbeitrag news:M4%68.90808$XZ1.4073857@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
>
> > most), but I need LOW power!  And of course low active power is good
> > too!  =)  Any suggestions are greatly appreciated.  Please copy any
>
> Xilinx is not the only vendor of CPLDs. Have a look at
>
> www.lattice.com

Uuups, its

www.latticesemi.com

--
MfG
Falk







Site Home   Archive Home   FAQ Home   How to search the Archive   How to Navigate the Archive   
Compare FPGA features and resources   

Threads starting:
1994JulAugSepOctNovDec1994
1995JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1995
1996JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1996
1997JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1997
1998JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1998
1999JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec1999
2000JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2000
2001JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2001
2002JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2002
2003JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2003
2004JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2004
2005JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2005
2006JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2006
2007JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2007
2008JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2008
2009JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2009
2010JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2010
2011JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2011
2012JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2012
2013JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2013
2014JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2014
2015JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2015
2016JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec2016
2017JanFebMarApr2017

Authors:A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Custom Search