IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer Aided Design. ICCAD - 2000. IEEE/ACM Digest of Technical Papers (Cat. No.00CH3714
DOI: 10.1109/iccad.2000.896490
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Achieving fast and exact hazard-free logic minimization of extended burst-mode gC finite state machines

Abstract: Abstract

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Publication Types

Select...
3
1

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Here, we used the listed benchmarks to compare the model sizes of XBMs and STGs, as well as compare the literal counts between the XBM tools (MINIMALIST and 3D) and the STG tools (PETRIFY and MPSAT via WORKCRAFT) based on their complex-gate implementations. These benchmarks include published XBMs found in the MINIMALIST framework [6], [23] (concur-mixer, dme, dram-ctrl, hp-ir, token-distributor, pe-send-ifc, pscsi, scsi, tangram-mixer), in the 3D [5] tool (biu-dma2fifo, diffeq, fifocellctrl), and in various publications (ack-xbm-si [24], biu-fifo2dma [5], imec-alloc-outbound [25], nowick-basic [4], pooffice-sbuf-send-ctl [17]). For fairness, we have factorised the literal counts produced by MINIMALIST and 3D using LOGIC FRIDAY [26] (a graphical frontend to the ESPRESSO logic minimiser [27]) before counting them, as they were originally in the sum-of-products form.…”
Section: Experimental Results and Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Here, we used the listed benchmarks to compare the model sizes of XBMs and STGs, as well as compare the literal counts between the XBM tools (MINIMALIST and 3D) and the STG tools (PETRIFY and MPSAT via WORKCRAFT) based on their complex-gate implementations. These benchmarks include published XBMs found in the MINIMALIST framework [6], [23] (concur-mixer, dme, dram-ctrl, hp-ir, token-distributor, pe-send-ifc, pscsi, scsi, tangram-mixer), in the 3D [5] tool (biu-dma2fifo, diffeq, fifocellctrl), and in various publications (ack-xbm-si [24], biu-fifo2dma [5], imec-alloc-outbound [25], nowick-basic [4], pooffice-sbuf-send-ctl [17]). For fairness, we have factorised the literal counts produced by MINIMALIST and 3D using LOGIC FRIDAY [26] (a graphical frontend to the ESPRESSO logic minimiser [27]) before counting them, as they were originally in the sum-of-products form.…”
Section: Experimental Results and Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In two-level logic minimization, all the terms are determined concurrently in the first level of two-level logic networks, and combined in the second level of the logic network. There are methods in literature that can provide an optimal two-level implementation of a logic function [5] [6]. Two-level logic minimization of logic functions with large number of variables falls into two categories, exact methods and heuristic methods.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Two-level logic minimization of logic functions with large number of variables falls into two categories, exact methods and heuristic methods. In exact methods, the procedure includes the computing of minimum cover (intractable for large functions), these methods are usually based on Quine-McCluskey method [5], [6]. Quine's theorem states that there is a minimum cover that is prime; consequently the search for minimum cover can be restricted to prime implicants.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation