Performance analysis and optimization of schedules for conditional and loop-intensive specifications
DAC '94 Proceedings of the 31st annual Design Automation Conference
Register allocation and binding for low power
DAC '95 Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference
IEEE Transactions on Very Large Scale Integration (VLSI) Systems
Profile-Driven Behavioral Synthesis for Low-Power VLSI Systems
IEEE Design & Test
SCALP: an iterative-improvement-based low-power data path synthesis system
IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems
Wavesched: a novel scheduling technique for control-flow intensive designs
IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems
High-level synthesis of low-power control-flow intensive circuits
IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems
SOMA: a tool for synthesizing and optimizing memory accesses in ASICs
CODES+ISSS '05 Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE/ACM/IFIP international conference on Hardware/software codesign and system synthesis
A fragmentation aware High-Level Synthesis flow for low power heterogenous datapaths
Integration, the VLSI Journal
Modeling and simulation in a formal design framework
Proceedings of the 6th Balkan Conference in Informatics
Hi-index | 0.00 |
In this paper, we describe a comprehensive high-level synthesis system for control-flow intensive as well as data-dominated behaviors. We propose a new control-data flow graph model to preserve the parallelism inherent in the application, as well as to facilitate high-level synthesis. Our algorithm, which is based on an iterative improvement strategy, performs clock selection, scheduling, module selection, resource allocation and assignment simultaneously to fully derive the benefits of design space exploration at the behavior level. The system can be used to optimize area, power or energy, by selecting the cost function accordingly. Experimental results show that for energy-optimized designs, energy is reduced by up to 79.4% (an average of 42.2%), with an average of 24.8% area overhead, compared to area-optimized designs. For power-optimized designs, power is reduced by up to 70.8% (an average of 56.7%), with an average of 25.2% area overhead, compared to area-optimized designs. No Vdd scaling is performed to obtain the above results.