Menu
▾
▴
#15 CSV2PHDL and Xilinx2PHDL need to be audited
In /phdl_utils/src/phdl_utils there is CSV2PHDL.java and Xilinx2PHDL.java. Diffing these two files shows that they are almost, but not quite, identical. One looks like a newer version of the other. I didn't dig in enough to see which was which, but either way a tool for Xilinx CSV files probably is better called Xilinx2PHDL.
The old version needs to be deleted from the repository since it's not up to date. The head of any particular branch in the repository should only ever contain the correct and latest version of any particular code.
Discussion
Anonymous
Pete probably knows more about this then I do, but I think that CSV2PHDL is used for a generic CSV file that you create for any device just from copying and pasting what you can from a datasheet.
The Xilinx2PHDL one is one specifically written for the Xilinx csv file. Maybe we should rename one of them, but we probably shouldn't delete one because they're used for two specific purposes.
What do you guys think about this?
(Tried posting this via the e-mail interface, but I'm not sure it worked right. So you might get this comment twice):
If they are separate utilities as you say, then that sounds fine, and we can
close this bug.
It was a little confusing because there have been a couple copies of Pete's
utilities floating around in the repository in different locations in the
past.
Diffing the two tools shows they are about 95% the same, so that's why I
figured one was just an old version of the other. If instead they are really
two separate things, then perhaps what we really want to do some time is to
unify their code base a little bit.
On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 16:16:13 Joshua Mangelson wrote:
If they are separate utilities as you say, then that sounds fine, and we can
close this bug.
It was a little confusing because there have been a couple copies of Pete's
utilities floating around in the repository in different locations in the
past.
Diffing the two tools shows they are about 95% the same, so that's why I
figured one was just an old version of the other. If instead they are really
two separate things, then perhaps what we really want to do some time is to
unify their code base a little bit.
I changed the bug title to note that the issue is that they share code and it wasn't 100% clear if they are both relevent, or if one is just an old copy of the other.
If they are truly separate up-to-date tools, then I've misjudged, and we can just close this bug as resolved.
Otherwise, we should resolve it by merging them or deleting one.