Minimig verilog build with makefiles.

[alexh]

In Windows I prefer to use the GUI. Doesnt take long.

[alexh]

Dennis wrote:
Posting the compile times would be usefull.
I would be interested in how fast they are when synthesizing Minimig code  :-D .

Computer A :
Intel Core2Duo x6600 2.4GHz
4 Gig RAM,
RedHat EL Workstation 4 (2.6.9-42.ELsmp)
Xilinx tools v9.1 (64-bit)

128.00 seconds (Synthesis)
2 min 9 seconds (Place and Route)

Total time 4 min 45 seconds

(Could possibly been faster if I hadnt been using a network drive)

Computer B:
Intel Quad core Xeon 5160
16 Gig RAM,
RedHat EL Workstation 4 (2.6.9-5.ELsmp)
Xilinx tools v9.1 (64-bit)

112.00 seconds (Synthesis)
2 mins 4 seconds (Place and Route)

Total time 3 min 56 seconds

(Could have been faster but there were 2 other people using it at the same time, damn you TetraMax!).

[alexh]

This time with no one else on it and running from a local drive.

Computer B:
Intel Quad core Xeon 5160 3GHz
16 Gig RAM,
RedHat EL Workstation 4 (2.6.9-5.ELsmp)
Xilinx tools v9.1 (64-bit)

96.47 seconds (Synthesis)
1 mins 37 seconds (Place and Route)

Total time 3 min 20 seconds

[alexh]

I saw many warnings including that it didnt meet timing, but I didnt have time to analyse. I also saw lots of warnings about asynchronous RAMS and blockRAM usage.

Does this makefile use the timing constraints and pin file that came with MiniMig?

Did a bitfile compiled with this makefile ever get loaded onto a MiniMig and work?

[alexh]

Computer C:
Intel Xeon 3.6 GHz (x2)
6 Gig RAM,
RedHat EL Workstation 4 (2.6.9-22.ELsmp)
Xilinx tools v9.1 (64-bit)

264.40 seconds (Synthesis)
3 mins 59 seconds (Place and Route)

Total time 8 min 32 seconds

Surprisingly slow compared to Computer A which cost half the price and has over 1GHz slower clock!

[alexh]

freqmax wrote:
The speed difference might be because that "Intel Core2Duo x6600" have two cpus to work with. While "Intel Xeon" have just one (or x2=two cpu cores?).

Both have two CPU's but the tools only ever use 1.

freqmax wrote:
And Xeon is optimized for 64-bit operation. While not all software is compiled appropietly to benefit.

Both are 64-bit optimized and both were running the 64-bit version of the tools.

freqmax wrote:
Also maybe earlier versions of ISE that don't multithread might indicate differences not otherwise seen.

AFAIK all versions of ISE are single threaded. I dont know what the latest version is, I was using v9.1

freqmax wrote:
Xeon is mainly Intels attempt to beat AMD64, not to benefit customer..

I am not 100% familiar with the term AMD64, but Xeon chips are high end server / workstation chips. Their equivalent are AMD OPTERONS. Xeon chips pre-date Opteron's.

Regular Intel CPU's (not just Xeon) have been 64-bit for a very long time. At least 3-4 years.

My comment was more of a statement. I couldnt believe that todays cheap Intel CPU's are now more powerful than their most expensive workstation chips from only a year previous.