|
Published Articles >> Table of Contents >> Abstract
First ACM and IEEE International Conference on Formal Methods and Models for Co-Design (MEMOCODE’03)
p. 277
PANEL: Should the space of implementation possibilities be determined by the abilities of high-level synthesis and validation?
Rajesh Gupta, University of California at San Diego
Sandeep Shukla, Virginia Polytechnic and State University
Full Article Text:
  
DOI Bookmark: http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/MEMCOD.2003.1210112
Send link to a friend
| Abstract |
|
Abstraction vs. implementation raises a lot of questions
in the minds of designers. Researchers in the EDA field
claim that abstraction helps validation, conceptualization,
and must be instrumental to coping with the rising complexity
of design. Design engineers often argue that abstraction
means distance from real implementation details, and hence
optimality is compromised. One may argue that some compromise
on optimality may be necessary to cope with the
mythical productivity gap, but experienced designers may
not agree to do that, especially in the field of performance
driven design, such as general purpose microprocessors.
In this panel, we ask industry and academic experts about
their views on the compromise one should be ready to make
in order for higher abstraction driven design methodology
to materialize.
|
 Additional Information
|
Citation:
Rajesh Gupta, Sandeep Shukla,
"PANEL: Should the space of implementation possibilities be determined by the abilities of high-level synthesis and validation?,"
memocode,
p. 277,
First ACM and IEEE International Conference on Formal Methods and Models for Co-Design (MEMOCODE’03),
2003
|
|
