1. Home
  2. Field-Programmable Gate Arrays
  3. Foundation evaluation on linux

Foundation evaluation on linux

Ok, So I'm trying to convince myself that spending the $3000 on Foundation will be a good move, with one of the main reasons being that I won't have to constantly switch back and forth from Windows (to run Foundation, or WebPack currently) and Linux (to run everything else).

I ordered (and eventually obtained - Xilinx *please* don't use DHL in the UK, it took 3 *hours* on the phone to re-arrange a missed delivery!) the evaluation pack, but this appears to only run on Windows, so it's essentially useless to me anyway - to be fair it did say it was Windows only, but I was hoping it would be the same package with a temporary licence.

So, I'll consult the collective wisdom of the group - which is probably what I ought to have done in the first place :-) Can I ask if there's anyone who's used Foundation on both architectures...

o If there are any differences between the two ? o Is there anything you can't do from the Linux environment ? o Is Linux a completely self-contained environment for development ? o How stable is it ? o What version of Linux are you running it on ? o Have you tried it on an AMD64 processor ? o Anything else I've missed ?

(These being the main reasons I wanted to evaluate first...)

Cheers,

Simon.

Reply to
Simon
Loading thread data ...

The main thing I notice is that some toolkit was used to convert the Windows gui to run under Linux. The resulting "feel" of the GUIs is a bit sluggish compared to the Windows versions. But it is not too bad. I have very recently switched to using the "native" Linux tools exclusively.

I am running both ISE and EDK in the native Linux versions, but I will admit to not using the EDK gui much. I set up the initial project with the GUI, and then mostly edit and run the resulting files at the command line.

I would like to get ChipScope, but alas, that is (still?) not available on Linux.

ChipScope. I have not run into any other problems yet. I would have to say I am pleasantly surprised, considering the complexity.

It works for me. I recently reformatted the disk on my main design machine, and Windows is gone. My laptop is still dualboot, but I don't do serious design work there.

I haven't had a problem.

RH 9, kernel 2.4.20.

No, but I doubt any of the programs are compiled for a 64 bit processor, so I am not sure there would be a big performace improvement. I would certainly be interested in knowing if there were, though!

--
My real email is akamail.com@dclark (or something like that).
Reply to
Duane Clark

Cheers Duane, appreciate it :-)

Simon.

Reply to
Simon

I'm running it on Linux/AMD64 (A dual Opteron) w/ SuSE Linux. It works well enough that I can't say anybody here has even bothered to install it under Windows.

All the GUI stuff is embarassingly slow. That toolkit they are using is clearly a dog in need of a slug. However, all the command line tools work just fine. It seems to be stable enough.

impact also works fine, but none of the external hardware devices work on AMD64. The PC-IV cable can be made to work on any i386 Linux, because there is a .a and source code shell to allow you to compile the drivers for your kernel (if you must) but that precompiled .a file cannot be used on AMD64, so the Linux drivers are useless on AMD64. Impact makes ACE files well enough.

--
Steve Williams                "The woods are lovely, dark and deep.
steve at icarus.com           But I have promises to keep,
http://www.icarus.com         and lines to code before I sleep,
http://www.picturel.com       And lines to code before I sleep."
Reply to
Stephen Williams

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.