> Can Tristan explain me why my idea (repuposing GHDL to synthesis > by creating a third target language, that is virtual and creates > the graphs when executed) is not sustainable ? > In my mind, it's the best way to synthesise very high leve VHDL > with minimal code development, while usual synthesisers have to start > small with basic constructs then work their way up by supporting > more and more constructs...
The code generated for simulation is far too simulation oriented: a lot of checks, lot of low-level constructs, design is not elaborated... Better to start after semantic analysis. Tristan. _______________________________________________ Ghdl-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/ghdl-discuss
