Talk:LEON

Open-source CPU?

What's an open source CPU?

The VHDL source for the processor is available for free, so if you have an FPGA board you can replicate this processor.

The advantage of this Sparc V8-implementation is that it requires a fairly small number of gates.136.163.203.3 14:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

So is it directly based on OpenSPARC or SPARC V8? -Mardus (talk) 05:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

SPARC V8 is a specification, not a chip design. Crispmuncher (talk) 09:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC).

Initialism

What does LEON stand for/mean? Robert K S (talk) 17:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

LRR

What's the LRR cache replacement algorithm? --Abdull (talk) 12:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC) I think somebody meant the LRU (least recently used) algorithm. Philippe (talk) 14:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No, not LRU. LRR means "least recently replaced" (source: LEON2 xst user's manual, version 1.0.30, section 4.1 on page 24) --141.3.72.169 (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

POV?

Serious, this reads exactly the same as the manufacturer's homepage... this article could be made a bit more neutral, couldn't it? 80.140.218.116 (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You won't get much support for your opinion that it is written like an advertisement. They have no money motive since the core is given away for free or almost free. Maybe you misinterpret their pride of creating this CPU as advertising? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.5.37 (talk) 04:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact, I do agree that this article needs improvement. First, the question if someone makes money from LEON is not relevant for Wikipedia quality standards. Second, Airoflex Gaisler does make money from their LEON cores. You can use it for free under the conditions of the GPL, but you can also pay for a commercial license. Also, please sign your name if you have something to add to the discussion. Philippe (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Please clarify SEU objective

Could you clarify this sentence in the history section?

Another objective was to be able to manufacture in a Single event upset (SEU) sensitive semiconductor process.

1. Is "manufacture in" a term of art that we could explain for general readers?

2. Also, a naive reading of the sentence seems to suggest that the designers intended to make the process or processor sensitive to SEUs, which the single event upset article suggests that most or all semiconductors are sensitive to single event upsets. Maybe the grammar is unclear. Please add a citation so I can get an alternative perspective on what this objective was, and what steps the designers took to meet this goal.

3. Perhaps we could add a follow-up sentence to explain what part(s) of the "semiconductor process" were modified to account for SEUs.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

In my naive reading, 1. means it is possible to be manufactured in a process that is sensitive to SEUs (which, as you note yourself in 2., most are), as opposed to manufactured in a process using physical radiation-hardening technology, i.e. it's cheaper than (hypothetical) alternative products. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:A62:11AE:AB01:8B67:E592:1AA:9806 (talk) 13:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

What built spacecraft have used the various versions of LEON

Triple redundant LEON3 was proposed for Parker Solar Probe, but was it actually used ? This article only seems to mention ESA Schiaparelli, what else has used it ? - Rod57 (talk) 13:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)