It sounds like a logical extension of phased-array technology. Or, sort of how they do radiation cancer treatment with dozens of weak beams converging on one spot.
However, in order to get this to work well, you need the transmitted signal to be phased-aligned to within an appreciable fraction of a wavelength. Since we are around a gigahertz, that means that the phase of the carrier should be accurate to within a couple hundred picoseconds, max. How you maintain this accuracy over multiple cell sites confuses me. Of course, this is all a wild-ass guess on how the technology works.
What is the problem with UPnp??? From what I understand, UPnP works like this:
1) All devices inside the local network are considered "trusted"
2) Trusted devices can poke holes in the firewall pointing only back to themselves.
Assuming that UPnP is implemented properly, and assuming that an attacker is on the outside of the local network, there is nothing for an attacker to grab on to. Now, if an attacker is on the INSIDE of your LAN, then you are already boned.
If people are concerned about status, then prestige becomes the new currency. People work hard to obtain it, and spend it on "things" like invitations to events. Just because it is not formalized does not make it less real.
Or, since I call the restaurant "Milliway's," you travel forward in time to get there, and then when you return to your own time, you make the reservations.
There is one thing that will never be able to replicate easily: human time and human skill. While a citizen might be able to "replicate" food, some people might still enjoy the touch of a real person, and feel that it carries a certain status. Let's assume that you have all of your needs met. So, you decide to open up a restaurant because you enjoy it (let's call it "Milliway's"), and for no other reason. You cook great food, and people flock to your restaurant because of the reputation. You cook for fun, so you have no desire to expand, and you can only serve a few dozen people per evening.
Now, if you can seat three dozen couples per evening, and you have 300 dozen couple wanting reservations, how do you decide which ones to seat? First-come, first-served certainly seems fair. However, your friend runs HIS own restaurant: you want to eat there, and he wants to eat at your restaurant. So, you can bump each other to the top of the reservation list.
Hmm. You decide that there is some food in the next town (state, country, continent, etc.) that you want to try. You do not know the person, but you want to figure out a way to exchange bumps to the top of the reservation list. Rather than having to do this manually, and having to contact each restaurant owner individually, you come up with a scheme. Each diner that you serve suddenly counts as a "dining reputation token." By accumulating, these tokens, you can use them to visit other restaurants. All of the chefs agree that this is a wonderful idea, since, by serving food, they can also get themselves to the top of the reservation lists at other restaurants.
Suddenly, you now have a new currency.
Of course, similar arguments can be made for other things that have more value when done by a person. Art being another fine example. An original painting can be worth millions, while a poster of the same painting can be worth $10. Both can look the same, but the inherent value is that one of them is one-of-a-kind, while the other can be produced by the boatload.
So, it is easy to imagine an "artistic" or "prestige" form of money, where the value is determined by the human skill and artistic vision that went into it.
Another thing is that not everything can be easily reproduced. Yes, you might be able to get a house built by robots for cheap (or even free). But there are only so many plots of land available by the side of a lake / ocean / river / etc. How do you divide up this property?
I cannot imagine a world without money. I can imagine that the essentials are free, so that you do not actually NEED money to get by. But there will always be luxury items that will NOT be free.
To me, at least, the GOP is not about money to the rich. They are about trying to keep a balanced budget. I don't know about you, but I have a wife and kids to support. I am certainly smart enough to know that living off of a credit card is not the key to happiness. Sure, it would be great for about a three or four months, but eventually the credit cards reach their maximum, and then the party is over. The latest fight over extending unemployment benefits went something like this:
Dems: We need to keep unemployment going for much longer.
GOP: Sure. Just find a way to pay for it without putting it on the credit card.
Dems: But.... but.... the credit card is free money! We won't get the bill until after I am out of office!
The left keeps on waging a war on people who are successful. I do not understand why. I do know that a lot of people have money who do not really deserve it (inheritance, investment banker, etc.), but a lot of things in life are unfair, and a lot of people have money who DO deserve it (followed their dream, worked hard, made wise choices, etc.) Punishing the successful is not exactly a way to make people want to succeed.
One thing to keep in mind is that taxing the "rich" has a very nasty side effect. Companies are legal entities, and they are "rich." Increasing taxes on companies will leave less money to hire new employees. It also makes it more expensive to be here, and is the reason that so many companies set up other corporations outside of the US (Cayman Islands, for example -- Wikipedia page) Yup, Cayman islands gets those jobs instead of the US.
Now, if there were no loopholes, then the rich would certainly pay more than their fair share of taxes. They use the same roads that I do, use the same police and fire services, and yet pay a lot more.
Now, about tax "loopholes." Some of that may indeed be the result of lobbyists buying favors from politicians. However, tax "loopholes" are often used by the government as a carrot to make people and businesses to do what they want. For example, hybrid cars and alternative energy earn tax credits.
By the way, the top two richest people in America (Gates and Buffett) are Democrats. The third (Ellson) is kind of in the middle politically, so you cannot characterize all rich guys as evil white republicans.
It is also interesting to read the wikipedia pages of the richest people. Other than the Wal-Mart children, they are generally self-made billionaires. While the Walton family did inherit their money, they got it from a man who literally built a retail empire from the ground-up.
When you do not have any money, it is all to easy to point at the people who have worked hard to achieve success and blame them.
Another vote for Reaper. The price is VERY reasonable compared to other software out there, and the near-complete lack of DRM is very nice too. Once you register it, you get a key file that disables a nag screen. They also don't care if you install it on your desktop and laptop at the same time.
No decent VST instruments included, but that is easily remedied.
That is exactly my point. At one extreme, you could do a job in a a few hundred thousand gates, and at the other extreme you could do a job in a few billion gates. This is sort of an extreme upper-bound and a lower-bound on the size of the solution. Without further details, we have no idea where in the spectrum the real solution lies.
"Some C algorithms may never transfer well into a hardware implementation."
This is a fundamentally silly thing to say
Not silly at all. Imagine a malloc of a gigabyte of RAM. You do not want to casually just drop a gigabyte of RAM into an ASIC, since that would likely be most of your chip size. You would need to use some sort of DRAM controller, which is HIGHLY dependent upon what foundry you use.
Also, how about opening an Ethernet port? Is this magic compiler also supposed to magically create a SerDes -- complete with a PLL, for any architecture that you choose?
Should I even mention file opens -- how would that work on a chip with no hard drive attached? Use your imagination about keyboards, mice, and graphics cards, and sound.
Actually, that depends on what the 24,000 transistors are doing. Let's assume that you stupidly did a divide using Verilog "/". This implies a one-cycle divide which might well take that many transistors. The problem is that you would not likely be able to get this to work in real life. With so many levels of logic, your timing would be pure crap. Plus you might have fanout and congestion issues that would further limit your timing. So you could get a divide in one clock cycle, but limit yourself to a clock speed of 10 MHz, for example.
Once you get past about 10 or 12 levels of logic (in my opinion), it is time to re-code, no matter what your clock speed is. If you can't get the job done in 12 level, it is time to re-think your approach. Register re-timing can certainly be useful, but it is much better to do the job right in RTL, the way God intended. Register re-timing can make later steps more complicated (including formal verification).
Meh. As long as you use this the way it is intended: making a lot of instances that look a lot alike, for-generate is awesome. I cannot imagine having to instantiate 128 instances of RAMs without it. Well, I could use PERL to generate Verilog, but that gets messy fast.
For what it's worth, Emacs has some pretty rockin' Verilog features. The ability to hook things up by name, with a regexp thrown in to keep things sorted, is awesome.
Emacs also has a completely different VHDL mode that provides a completely different set of features, with the down side that you have to use VHDL;-)
Seriously, Emacs has a Verilog and a VHDL mode that both provide awesome, but almost completely non-overlapping features. Verilog mode does lots of cool things that VHDL does not do, and vice-verse.
I wish that somebody would port the VHDL stuff over to Verilog world... that somebody NOT being me, since I already have Verilog, bash, csh, PERL, and some Java rolling around in my head. It would probably sprain my brain to get enough LISP in there to do the job. Hmm, is it "if () {" or "if () begin"??? Do I do "else if" or "elsif." That sort of thing gets tiring after a while. Plus, with a wife and five kids, not much time for learning a new language either.
Why doesn't somebody port Emacs over to PERL instead of the bloody abortion known as LISP? Not THAT I could learn to love.
Did you pull these numbers from your rectal database? Given these rules, it should be theoretically possible to put the Linux kernel in a chip without a general-purpose CPU.
From Wikipedia: As of 2013, the Linux 3.10 release had 15,803,499 lines of code.
This means that you would need around 2.2 million lines of Verilog. If you assume around 20 gates per line of code, that comes to 44 million gates. Assuming around ten transistors per gate, that comes to 440 million transistors. That is smaller than the current "Sandy Bridge M-2" die. And since it completely bypasses the fetch-decode-execute pipeline of a general-purpose CPU, it should run blazingly fast! So, for fewer transistors, we can get probably 10x the performance of running the Linux core on dedicated silicon.
Of course this is a very stilted example to show how stupid such rules of thumb can be.
I think that he was talking about doing a divide the dummy way: just use the "/" character and let the compiler do it in one clock cycle. Yes, you can do divide in a LOT fewer transistors, but you have to be smart about it, and wait a few extra clock cycles.
I still must disagree. Yes, the syntax is somewhat like C. However, WHAT you are coding is completely different. In particular, things that C and do with a simple "if" statement are not allowed at all in proper gate design. It is not hard to imagine a software guy coding latches all over the place, assigning the same signals from withing different always blocks, etc. Even "always @(posedge clock)" may be a fundamental paradigm shift for a software guy. And not to mention the rather arbitrary way that Verilog treats wire vs. reg.
wire a = b & c;
wire a; assign a = b & c;
reg a always @(*) a = b & c;
These three constructs do the same thing. Why is one "wire" and one "reg"?
What is the difference between the two blocks (they are NOT the same - blocking vs. non-blocking)?
always @(posedge clk) begin
a = b;
c = a & b; end
always @(posedge clk) begin
a = b;
c = a & b; end
What about race conditions? Glitches on combinatorial logic? Proper coding of state machines? Need memory? How do you drop in an encrypted 3rd party DDR controller and PHY? Interface with AHB bus? In a given process, how many levels are logic are reasonable for a given clock speed? What exactly are hold violations?
I am not saying that any of these are insurmountable. What I am saying is that a good digital designer is worth paying for, and a software guy may have a very steep learning curve indeed.
Oh, one more thing about "C to Gates" compilers. In the industry I have not seen one in actual use, but they do supposedly exist. However, they would only work in a limited domain.
For example, if you have C++ that does simple control or DSP-type stuff, then it might work (cannot vouch for the quality of the results). On the other hand, if you get one of these compilers and try feeding it the source code for the Apache web server or the Quake engine source code, you are completely screwed.
If your application is, say, a novel type of network filter that inspects and does something to Ethernet packets, you have to figure out how to interface your design with a real Ethernet SerDes.. which is a *LOT* different than opening up something in the "/dev/" directory. If your application is robotics, then you also need to get data into and out of the chip. How exactly is this done? How fast does the logic need to run? Is it speech processing? If so, then this will involve a lot of straight-forward DSP. If you constrain the design to tell it how fast the data needs to flow through, you should be able to get a reasonable estimate. Does your application need a lot of memory? If so, you might need some type of RAM controller. DRAM controllers can be hairy to work with, and you also have to consider latency and throughput.
In theory, C to gates can work quite well, ***for a limited subset of applications***.
HOWEVER: as others have pointed out, anybody who needs to know the answer to this question should be qualified to answer it for themselves.
Seriously???? Asking a C++ programmer to begin to use Verilog is simply not practical. There is a VERY STEEP learning curve in trying to target real hardware. There is even a very different frame of mind that has to be learned in order to target gates.
I speak from experience. I program Verilog and SystemVerilog for a living doing ASIC design.
Now, to answer the OP:
The answer is very strongly: it depends. The most optimistic answer is a couple hundred thousand. Implement an 8-bit CPU and write the thing in under 32K of code.
On the other end of the spectrum is "many billions." Design your own x86 multi-core CPU, throw a couple of gigs of SRAM on the ASIC, tons of flash for a solid-state disc drive, and you will have a complete high-end PC on a chip. Then add your software.
Of course, these are both ridiculous extremes. Everything depends on the TYPE of operations being done. In a CPU a simple 32-bit multiply can be done with one character ("*"). In gates, if you need the answer in a single clock cycle, it can take an EXTREME amount of logic. However, if you are willing to wait 32 clock cycles for the answer, the amount of logic is reduced to a very manageable level. This is why C++ is a bad choice of input. How time-sensitive is it? Hardware is also very parallel in nature. Different parts of the chip can indeed be working on different things at the same time. You can go for a strictly pipelined architecture where each block does one little bit of the job and passes it off to the next block. High throughput, but lots of gates. Or you could design a general-purpose block and have it to everything slowly (the most extreme example of this approach is a common CPU).
While I have heard of magic "C to gates" compilers, after almost 15 years in the business, I have never actually seen one. The closest that I have seen are tools that can turn Matlab code into (messy-looking) gates. If your algorithm is DSP in nature, this is a very viable alternative. Otherwise, the only advice that I can give you is to consult somebody who does hardware design for a living (like me).
Otherwise, you really need to look at where the input comes from, where the output goes, and how fast you need to do the work.
So why is it that the vast majority of mass shootings are in "gun free zones?"
The New Life shooting was stopped by a person with a concealed permit: Wikpedia Link Without concealed permits, that WOULD have been a "mass shooting."
What do criminals fear most? Encountering a person who is willing to shoot back.
AFAIK, the MAC address is still needed no matter which IP version you are using. The MAC address is NOT an "IP" thing. It is a fundamental part of Ethernet.
Slashdot Mirror
It sounds like a logical extension of phased-array technology. Or, sort of how they do radiation cancer treatment with dozens of weak beams converging on one spot.
However, in order to get this to work well, you need the transmitted signal to be phased-aligned to within an appreciable fraction of a wavelength. Since we are around a gigahertz, that means that the phase of the carrier should be accurate to within a couple hundred picoseconds, max. How you maintain this accuracy over multiple cell sites confuses me. Of course, this is all a wild-ass guess on how the technology works.
Ahhhhh. That make sense. Thanks.
What is the problem with UPnp??? From what I understand, UPnP works like this:
1) All devices inside the local network are considered "trusted"
2) Trusted devices can poke holes in the firewall pointing only back to themselves.
Assuming that UPnP is implemented properly, and assuming that an attacker is on the outside of the local network, there is nothing for an attacker to grab on to. Now, if an attacker is on the INSIDE of your LAN, then you are already boned.
What am I missing?
If people are concerned about status, then prestige becomes the new currency. People work hard to obtain it, and spend it on "things" like invitations to events. Just because it is not formalized does not make it less real.
So, when you go to see a live play, you want robots or holograms? Nice.
Or, since I call the restaurant "Milliway's," you travel forward in time to get there, and then when you return to your own time, you make the reservations.
There is one thing that will never be able to replicate easily: human time and human skill. While a citizen might be able to "replicate" food, some people might still enjoy the touch of a real person, and feel that it carries a certain status. Let's assume that you have all of your needs met. So, you decide to open up a restaurant because you enjoy it (let's call it "Milliway's"), and for no other reason. You cook great food, and people flock to your restaurant because of the reputation. You cook for fun, so you have no desire to expand, and you can only serve a few dozen people per evening.
Now, if you can seat three dozen couples per evening, and you have 300 dozen couple wanting reservations, how do you decide which ones to seat? First-come, first-served certainly seems fair. However, your friend runs HIS own restaurant: you want to eat there, and he wants to eat at your restaurant. So, you can bump each other to the top of the reservation list.
Hmm. You decide that there is some food in the next town (state, country, continent, etc.) that you want to try. You do not know the person, but you want to figure out a way to exchange bumps to the top of the reservation list. Rather than having to do this manually, and having to contact each restaurant owner individually, you come up with a scheme. Each diner that you serve suddenly counts as a "dining reputation token." By accumulating, these tokens, you can use them to visit other restaurants. All of the chefs agree that this is a wonderful idea, since, by serving food, they can also get themselves to the top of the reservation lists at other restaurants.
Suddenly, you now have a new currency.
Of course, similar arguments can be made for other things that have more value when done by a person. Art being another fine example. An original painting can be worth millions, while a poster of the same painting can be worth $10. Both can look the same, but the inherent value is that one of them is one-of-a-kind, while the other can be produced by the boatload.
So, it is easy to imagine an "artistic" or "prestige" form of money, where the value is determined by the human skill and artistic vision that went into it.
Another thing is that not everything can be easily reproduced. Yes, you might be able to get a house built by robots for cheap (or even free). But there are only so many plots of land available by the side of a lake / ocean / river / etc. How do you divide up this property?
I cannot imagine a world without money. I can imagine that the essentials are free, so that you do not actually NEED money to get by. But there will always be luxury items that will NOT be free.
Brand new news:
The House votes 221-201 to raise the nation's debt ceiling, but only 28 Republicans, including Speaker John Boehner, vote yes
The government is whipping out the credit card again, with mostly democratic support.
????? Proof???
To me, at least, the GOP is not about money to the rich. They are about trying to keep a balanced budget. I don't know about you, but I have a wife and kids to support. I am certainly smart enough to know that living off of a credit card is not the key to happiness. Sure, it would be great for about a three or four months, but eventually the credit cards reach their maximum, and then the party is over. The latest fight over extending unemployment benefits went something like this:
Dems: We need to keep unemployment going for much longer.
GOP: Sure. Just find a way to pay for it without putting it on the credit card.
Dems: But.... but.... the credit card is free money! We won't get the bill until after I am out of office!
The left keeps on waging a war on people who are successful. I do not understand why. I do know that a lot of people have money who do not really deserve it (inheritance, investment banker, etc.), but a lot of things in life are unfair, and a lot of people have money who DO deserve it (followed their dream, worked hard, made wise choices, etc.) Punishing the successful is not exactly a way to make people want to succeed.
One thing to keep in mind is that taxing the "rich" has a very nasty side effect. Companies are legal entities, and they are "rich." Increasing taxes on companies will leave less money to hire new employees. It also makes it more expensive to be here, and is the reason that so many companies set up other corporations outside of the US (Cayman Islands, for example -- Wikipedia page) Yup, Cayman islands gets those jobs instead of the US.
Now, if there were no loopholes, then the rich would certainly pay more than their fair share of taxes. They use the same roads that I do, use the same police and fire services, and yet pay a lot more.
Now, about tax "loopholes." Some of that may indeed be the result of lobbyists buying favors from politicians. However, tax "loopholes" are often used by the government as a carrot to make people and businesses to do what they want. For example, hybrid cars and alternative energy earn tax credits.
By the way, the top two richest people in America (Gates and Buffett) are Democrats. The third (Ellson) is kind of in the middle politically, so you cannot characterize all rich guys as evil white republicans.
It is also interesting to read the wikipedia pages of the richest people. Other than the Wal-Mart children, they are generally self-made billionaires. While the Walton family did inherit their money, they got it from a man who literally built a retail empire from the ground-up.
When you do not have any money, it is all to easy to point at the people who have worked hard to achieve success and blame them.
Another vote for Reaper. The price is VERY reasonable compared to other software out there, and the near-complete lack of DRM is very nice too. Once you register it, you get a key file that disables a nag screen. They also don't care if you install it on your desktop and laptop at the same time.
No decent VST instruments included, but that is easily remedied.
That is exactly my point. At one extreme, you could do a job in a a few hundred thousand gates, and at the other extreme you could do a job in a few billion gates. This is sort of an extreme upper-bound and a lower-bound on the size of the solution. Without further details, we have no idea where in the spectrum the real solution lies.
Not silly at all. Imagine a malloc of a gigabyte of RAM. You do not want to casually just drop a gigabyte of RAM into an ASIC, since that would likely be most of your chip size. You would need to use some sort of DRAM controller, which is HIGHLY dependent upon what foundry you use.
Also, how about opening an Ethernet port? Is this magic compiler also supposed to magically create a SerDes -- complete with a PLL, for any architecture that you choose?
Should I even mention file opens -- how would that work on a chip with no hard drive attached? Use your imagination about keyboards, mice, and graphics cards, and sound.
Actually, that depends on what the 24,000 transistors are doing. Let's assume that you stupidly did a divide using Verilog "/". This implies a one-cycle divide which might well take that many transistors. The problem is that you would not likely be able to get this to work in real life. With so many levels of logic, your timing would be pure crap. Plus you might have fanout and congestion issues that would further limit your timing. So you could get a divide in one clock cycle, but limit yourself to a clock speed of 10 MHz, for example.
Once you get past about 10 or 12 levels of logic (in my opinion), it is time to re-code, no matter what your clock speed is. If you can't get the job done in 12 level, it is time to re-think your approach. Register re-timing can certainly be useful, but it is much better to do the job right in RTL, the way God intended. Register re-timing can make later steps more complicated (including formal verification).
Meh. As long as you use this the way it is intended: making a lot of instances that look a lot alike, for-generate is awesome. I cannot imagine having to instantiate 128 instances of RAMs without it. Well, I could use PERL to generate Verilog, but that gets messy fast.
For what it's worth, Emacs has some pretty rockin' Verilog features. The ability to hook things up by name, with a regexp thrown in to keep things sorted, is awesome.
Emacs also has a completely different VHDL mode that provides a completely different set of features, with the down side that you have to use VHDL ;-)
Seriously, Emacs has a Verilog and a VHDL mode that both provide awesome, but almost completely non-overlapping features. Verilog mode does lots of cool things that VHDL does not do, and vice-verse.
I wish that somebody would port the VHDL stuff over to Verilog world... that somebody NOT being me, since I already have Verilog, bash, csh, PERL, and some Java rolling around in my head. It would probably sprain my brain to get enough LISP in there to do the job. Hmm, is it "if () {" or "if () begin"??? Do I do "else if" or "elsif." That sort of thing gets tiring after a while. Plus, with a wife and five kids, not much time for learning a new language either.
Why doesn't somebody port Emacs over to PERL instead of the bloody abortion known as LISP? Not THAT I could learn to love.
At least you get it. If that sig doesn't get me geed cred, I don't know what will.
Did you pull these numbers from your rectal database? Given these rules, it should be theoretically possible to put the Linux kernel in a chip without a general-purpose CPU.
From Wikipedia:
As of 2013, the Linux 3.10 release had 15,803,499 lines of code.
This means that you would need around 2.2 million lines of Verilog. If you assume around 20 gates per line of code, that comes to 44 million gates. Assuming around ten transistors per gate, that comes to 440 million transistors. That is smaller than the current "Sandy Bridge M-2" die. And since it completely bypasses the fetch-decode-execute pipeline of a general-purpose CPU, it should run blazingly fast! So, for fewer transistors, we can get probably 10x the performance of running the Linux core on dedicated silicon.
Of course this is a very stilted example to show how stupid such rules of thumb can be.
I think that he was talking about doing a divide the dummy way: just use the "/" character and let the compiler do it in one clock cycle. Yes, you can do divide in a LOT fewer transistors, but you have to be smart about it, and wait a few extra clock cycles.
Gaaa. On the blocking vs. non-blocking, Slashdot swallowed the "less than" sign. Apologies.
I still must disagree. Yes, the syntax is somewhat like C. However, WHAT you are coding is completely different. In particular, things that C and do with a simple "if" statement are not allowed at all in proper gate design. It is not hard to imagine a software guy coding latches all over the place, assigning the same signals from withing different always blocks, etc. Even "always @(posedge clock)" may be a fundamental paradigm shift for a software guy. And not to mention the rather arbitrary way that Verilog treats wire vs. reg.
wire a = b & c;
wire a;
assign a = b & c;
reg a
always @(*) a = b & c;
These three constructs do the same thing. Why is one "wire" and one "reg"?
What is the difference between the two blocks (they are NOT the same - blocking vs. non-blocking)?
always @(posedge clk) begin
a = b;
c = a & b;
end
always @(posedge clk) begin
a = b;
c = a & b;
end
What about race conditions? Glitches on combinatorial logic? Proper coding of state machines? Need memory? How do you drop in an encrypted 3rd party DDR controller and PHY? Interface with AHB bus? In a given process, how many levels are logic are reasonable for a given clock speed? What exactly are hold violations?
I am not saying that any of these are insurmountable. What I am saying is that a good digital designer is worth paying for, and a software guy may have a very steep learning curve indeed.
Oh, one more thing about "C to Gates" compilers. In the industry I have not seen one in actual use, but they do supposedly exist. However, they would only work in a limited domain.
For example, if you have C++ that does simple control or DSP-type stuff, then it might work (cannot vouch for the quality of the results). On the other hand, if you get one of these compilers and try feeding it the source code for the Apache web server or the Quake engine source code, you are completely screwed.
If your application is, say, a novel type of network filter that inspects and does something to Ethernet packets, you have to figure out how to interface your design with a real Ethernet SerDes .. which is a *LOT* different than opening up something in the "/dev/" directory. If your application is robotics, then you also need to get data into and out of the chip. How exactly is this done? How fast does the logic need to run? Is it speech processing? If so, then this will involve a lot of straight-forward DSP. If you constrain the design to tell it how fast the data needs to flow through, you should be able to get a reasonable estimate. Does your application need a lot of memory? If so, you might need some type of RAM controller. DRAM controllers can be hairy to work with, and you also have to consider latency and throughput.
In theory, C to gates can work quite well, ***for a limited subset of applications***.
HOWEVER: as others have pointed out, anybody who needs to know the answer to this question should be qualified to answer it for themselves.
Seriously???? Asking a C++ programmer to begin to use Verilog is simply not practical. There is a VERY STEEP learning curve in trying to target real hardware. There is even a very different frame of mind that has to be learned in order to target gates.
I speak from experience. I program Verilog and SystemVerilog for a living doing ASIC design.
Now, to answer the OP:
The answer is very strongly: it depends. The most optimistic answer is a couple hundred thousand. Implement an 8-bit CPU and write the thing in under 32K of code.
On the other end of the spectrum is "many billions." Design your own x86 multi-core CPU, throw a couple of gigs of SRAM on the ASIC, tons of flash for a solid-state disc drive, and you will have a complete high-end PC on a chip. Then add your software.
Of course, these are both ridiculous extremes. Everything depends on the TYPE of operations being done. In a CPU a simple 32-bit multiply can be done with one character ("*"). In gates, if you need the answer in a single clock cycle, it can take an EXTREME amount of logic. However, if you are willing to wait 32 clock cycles for the answer, the amount of logic is reduced to a very manageable level. This is why C++ is a bad choice of input. How time-sensitive is it? Hardware is also very parallel in nature. Different parts of the chip can indeed be working on different things at the same time. You can go for a strictly pipelined architecture where each block does one little bit of the job and passes it off to the next block. High throughput, but lots of gates. Or you could design a general-purpose block and have it to everything slowly (the most extreme example of this approach is a common CPU).
While I have heard of magic "C to gates" compilers, after almost 15 years in the business, I have never actually seen one. The closest that I have seen are tools that can turn Matlab code into (messy-looking) gates. If your algorithm is DSP in nature, this is a very viable alternative. Otherwise, the only advice that I can give you is to consult somebody who does hardware design for a living (like me).
Otherwise, you really need to look at where the input comes from, where the output goes, and how fast you need to do the work.
So why is it that the vast majority of mass shootings are in "gun free zones?"
The New Life shooting was stopped by a person with a concealed permit: Wikpedia Link Without concealed permits, that WOULD have been a "mass shooting."
What do criminals fear most? Encountering a person who is willing to shoot back.
AFAIK, the MAC address is still needed no matter which IP version you are using. The MAC address is NOT an "IP" thing. It is a fundamental part of Ethernet.
Anybody seen a street address on the page?
I am going to be in the neighborhood and might want to stop by, but that is kind of hard without an exact address.
The nearest that I can figure out is "near Denver somewhere."
HERE is the link to the spreadsheet, complete with link to the source material.