[Oberon] What is the status of Lola-2 and its use in the FPGAversion ofProject Oberon?

[Paul Reed]

> How do you decide whether to use
> Lola-2 or Verilog?

I prefer to use Lola wherever possible, it's clearer than either 
(System)Verilog or VHDL.  If a feature requires special features not 
supported by Lola, I wrap it in Verilog.  The main cause of this 
currently is library identifiers (e.g. "_" characters), but in fact it's 
really wrapping the nonportable pieces.


> Are there projects/project sizes where you would
> not recommend to use Lola-2?

Sorry, this is a rather general question on which I cannot give any 
solid data.  I have not compared projects with and without, in any 
meaningful way.  I am really talking only about personal preferences.  I 
suggest you could try it, and see if it works for you, that's all.  
YMMV.


> Is it necessary to modify the generated
> Verilog code or can it directly be synthesized and placed/routed for
> an FPGA?

As Wirth describes, the Verilog generated by Lola-2 is used directly as 
input to synthesis.  Verilog is used as a kind of intermediate language 
in order to get round the (often) proprietary nature of the FPGA 
bitstream.

The original version of Lola compiled directly to a PAL fuse file or to 
an early FPGA bitstream, see http://www.cs.inf.ethz.ch/lola/

Wirth ended up using Verilog to define the TRM and RISC5 rather than 
VHDL, I think, because his colleagues Chuck Thacker and Ling Liu were 
using Verilog.  But I know he's not impressed by either language.

See https://www.inf.ethz.ch/personal/wirth/FPGA-relatedWork/index.html


> ... it's not obvious what is
> synthesized and how.

This is indeed part of the insanity of FPGAs.  Like having a compiler 
which uses a different optimisation backend picked at random again and 
again, for each function, for each compile.  With the original Lola, 
Wirth took a much more sensible approach (as always).

Cheers,
Paul