Why is Xilinx's WebPACK so inferior?

I've been using the Xilinx Webpack 8.2i since sometime in November,
and I've become so irritated with their software that I'm about ready
to just become a rabid Xilinx basher.

I've encountered uncountable crashes while actually trying to use their
horribly clunky ISE.  On a recent weekend I found four different
internal errors in XST while using their command line tools.

For a product which boasts a copyright going back to 1995 -- that's a
12-year-old product -- it sure feels like alpha release software.

My most recent issue is the fact that most VHDL attributes are
absolutely broken in the VHDL compiler.  How on earth could such a
horribly engineered and maintained product last for 12 years?

For example, this simple source will cause the XST product to produce
one error.  Only one.  It gives up after one error, but if you reorder
the assignments to 'i' and 'l' it will produce an error for that the
other use of 'pred' as well.

  entity main is
      Port (clk : in boolean);
  end main;

  architecture are_xilinx_tools_inferior of main is

    type logic_level is (unknown, low, undriven, high);
    type index       is range 5 downto 0;

    signal l   : logic_level   := undriven;
    signal i   : index         := 4;

  begin

    driver : process (clk) is
    begin
      if clk then
           i   <= index'pred(i);
           l   <= logic_level'pred(l);
      end if;
    end process driver;                                    
  end are_xilinx_tools_inferior;

The error it produces is:

   ERROR:Xst:772 - "main.vhd" line 18: Attribute is not authorized : 'pred'.

Not authorized?  Do I need to call a bank or some police department to
obtain 'authorization'?

(Incidentally, the freely available VHDL Simili compiler will compile
the above source with no complaint).

Attempts to file reports about Xilinx's terrible software with the
company itself have fallen upon the canonical "three monkeys" (see no
evil, hear no evil, speak no evil).  You can't file reports to the
company until you register.  When you register you are asked ONLY for
a name, email address and password -- and that's all you can provide.
Then, after a few days, they'll deny you access to file reports with
them because you failed to provide a company name, street address and
job title.

Holy cow, Batman.  How can a company thrive when it strives to avoid
bettering their software through 12 years of releases, and then
further sets up insurmountable hurdles in order for customers to
report issues to them.

Does anyone know how to get Xilinx's attention, or how to get their
software to actually work?  Frankly, I don't care about the ISE
environment -- that's way beyond being usable for fixed.

I'd be happy if I could just get a VHDL compiler which actually
produces images which can be loaded on the Xilinx Spartan 3E board.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

thutt

"Taylor Hutt" <thutt151@comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:m38xdrqykd.fsf@localhost.localdomain...
>
> I've been using the Xilinx Webpack 8.2i since sometime in November,
> and I've become so irritated with their software that I'm about ready
> to just become a rabid Xilinx basher.
>
snipped rabid bashing...
>
> Does anyone know how to get Xilinx's attention,

Get a purchasing job at Cisco?

HTH, Syms.

p.s. You've really lasted since November? Dude, RESPECT! :-)

Taylor Hutt wrote:

> I've been using the Xilinx Webpack 8.2i since sometime in November,
> and I've become so irritated with their software that I'm about ready
> to just become a rabid Xilinx basher.
<snip>

> Does anyone know how to get Xilinx's attention, or how to get their
> software to actually work?  

Try the code in Altera's Quartus, and quote that - nothing like
being seen to be last, to hurry someone along....
While you have Quartus up, you could even see how the
new Cyclone III looks for the design. Mention that to
Xilinx as well...

-jg

Taylor,

Well, Peter and I read the newsgroup, so we can provide an omudsman 
function.

Did you register?  Did you get confirmation back?  What was it that did 
not allow you to file a webcase?

If possible, send me what went wrong (links, steps taken, etc.).

With 250,000 seats of software, some people are able to file 
webcases...so it can't be completely broken!  For example, I see the 
reports on what cases get filed, and what category they are assigned to 
(software, hardware, and so on).

One other comment:  our synthesis tool (XST) was never meant to compete 
with the "real" tools that exist.  XST is a vehicle for research into 
synthesis, where we have an opportunity to test how synthesis works with 
  our FPGAs.  We share all synthesis ideas and improvements with the 
"real" synthesis tool vendors, so that they may add value by performing 
more efficient synthesis using our devices.  This is in no way an 
apology for bugs, but a statement of fact.  XST is not intended to 
compete with "real" synthesis tools.  It is made available in Webpack, 
as a means to allow others to get some feeling for the flow, and the 
potential.  The XST team is dedicated to pioneering improvements, and 
they very much like to get feedback.

Efficient synthesis for things like our DSP48e, and other features are 
not trivial:  and older tool may synthesis correctly, yet be horribly 
inefficient, and turn out huge areas and slow logic.

In any event, I will pass your issues along to the XST development team 
once I get the details of what did not work.

Austin

Ombudsman...

Perhaps the previous spelling was a subconscious error?

In any event, send me the problems.

Austin

>
> One other comment:  our synthesis tool (XST) was never meant to compete
> with the "real" tools that exist.  XST is a vehicle for research into
> synthesis, where we have an opportunity to test how synthesis works with
>   our FPGAs.  We share all synthesis ideas and improvements with the
> "real" synthesis tool vendors, so that they may add value by performing
> more efficient synthesis using our devices.  This is in no way an
> apology for bugs, but a statement of fact.  XST is not intended to
> compete with "real" synthesis tools.  It is made available in Webpack,
> as a means to allow others to get some feeling for the flow, and the
> potential.

Wow, I've been using xst (and webpack, base-x, and foundation) for
years now and never once heard this. I've used it in over 20 designs,
including some moderately-high-end virtex-4 stuff, and never had the
slightest idea that I was using inferior tools.

Who makes these other synthesis tools? Are they expensive? Is this
what happens when you do all of your engineering at a university?

      ...Eric

On Mar 20, 4:34 pm, Taylor Hutt <thutt...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I've been using the Xilinx Webpack 8.2i since sometime in November,
> and I've become so irritated with their software that I'm about ready
> to just become a rabid Xilinx basher.

I've maintained projects that targeted both X and A, and Quartus is
leaps and heaps better (faster, much less buggy, and subjectively more
user friendly). Austin's comment about not "competing with _real_
synthesizer" is odd to say the least. It sounds like an admision of
defeat.

I'm not an A fan-boy. I'd be most happy if X improved ISE. I can
imagine A getting design wins simply because ISE's effect on
development time. Time to market is King.

Tommy

Austin wrote:

<snip>
> One other comment:  our synthesis tool (XST) was never meant to compete 
> with the "real" tools that exist.  XST is a vehicle for research into 
> synthesis, where we have an opportunity to test how synthesis works with 
>  our FPGAs.  We share all synthesis ideas and improvements with the 
> "real" synthesis tool vendors, so that they may add value by performing 
> more efficient synthesis using our devices.  This is in no way an 
> apology for bugs, but a statement of fact.  XST is not intended to 
> compete with "real" synthesis tools.  It is made available in Webpack, 
> as a means to allow others to get some feeling for the flow, and the 
> potential.  The XST team is dedicated to pioneering improvements, and 
> they very much like to get feedback.

Wow.

Didn't Xilinx just add their own XST Simulation flow ?
- does that simulation capability, come into the same category, of 
"never meant to compete with the "real" tools" ?

How many staff do Xilinx have working on XST ? - do they concurr with
Austin's statements above ?

-jg

Jim,

http://www.xilinx.com/products/design_tools/logic_design/synthesis/xst.htm

If you read that page, it says what I just did, but in "marketese."

I quote:

"Xilinx uses XST as a proving ground for many of the innovative 
optimization ideas that Xilinx engineers have for improving HDL design 
flows for Xilinx devices. These improvements are then shared with Xilinx 
third party synthesis partners to ensure that anyone targeting Xilinx 
FPGAs as their solution can benefit from the best optimization the 
industry has to offer."

In other words, XST is a test vehicle where we are intentionally 
experimenting, in order to improve.

Austin

Tommy,

http://www.xilinx.com/xlnx/xil_ans_display.jsp?sGlobalNavPick=PRODUCTS&sSecondaryNavPick=Design+Tools&iLanguageID=1&getPagePath=15390

Might answer your questions.

Doesn't anyone even do a simple search before they type their response?

Austin