Hacker News Reader

Comment by almostgotcaught | Hacker News Reader

> We are so stupidly limited by our EDA tooling and infrastructure.

The problem that no one will ever solve is there's no gcc equivalent to NXT. Everything is downstream of that problem.

are you sure it will do anything at all? I am not. The current setup, while objectively sucks for engineers is still quite capable and it *works*. we are far from reaching limits of what is capable to design and tape with current flows. frontend money aspect for tools is still peanuts in comparison to backend and actual fabrication, so it will not generate a renaissance era like gcc did for software

Backend and fab costs are dominant (or even packaging costs are on par with silicon costs these days), correct, but verification is an multiplier on overall costs. The cost of a re-spin is huge. To your point though, most issues warranting a resping are backend related.

> are you sure it will do anything at all? I am not. The current setup, while objectively sucks for engineers is still quite capable and it works

go back in time to before gcc - i'm 100% sure people were saying the exact same thing about borland (or whatever).

I don't recall anyone being "objectively-sucks" level of unhappy with proprietary C compilers. Moving to gcc was often a regression -- because it was much slower to run and sometimes generated worse code -- for developers used to Turbo C or CodeWarrior-style IDEs.

AFAIK when it comes to using the features of recent CPU architectures, Intel's compilers produce more performant / efficient code than GCC or Clang.

A sufficiently smart compiler requires ever more clever compiler writers who are deeply knowledgeable about the many quirks of the numerous architectures.

> Intel's compilers produce more performant / efficient code than GCC or Clang

Intel's compiler are clang forks.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com