HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
m-labs
nmigen
Python2020–2021
m-labs / nmigen

nmigen

A refreshed Python toolbox for building complex digital hardware. See https://gitlab.com/nmigen/nmigen

2Distinct people
2Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
691GitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

A refreshed Python toolbox for building complex digital hardware. See https://gitlab.com/nmigen/nmigen

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 1:49:46 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by week2 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2020-07-23 23:22:10 UTC to 2021-01-03 19:05:57 UTC. Weeks start Monday, UTC.

012020-07-20 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-07-27 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsJul 202020-07-27 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-08-03 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2020-08-03 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-08-10 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2020-08-10 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-08-17 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2020-08-17 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-08-24 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2020-08-24 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-08-31 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2020-08-31 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-09-07 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2020-09-07 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-09-14 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2020-09-14 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-09-21 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2020-09-21 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-09-28 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2020-09-28 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-10-05 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2020-10-05 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-10-12 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 commentsOct 52020-10-12 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-10-19 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2020-10-19 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-10-26 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2020-10-26 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-11-02 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2020-11-02 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-11-09 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2020-11-09 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-11-16 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2020-11-16 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-11-23 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2020-11-23 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-11-30 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2020-11-30 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-12-07 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2020-12-07 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-12-14 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2020-12-14 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-12-21 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2020-12-21 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-12-28 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2020-12-28 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-01-04 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsDec 28

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
Jul 202020-07-20 00:00:00 UTC2020-07-27 00:00:00 UTC101
Jul 272020-07-27 00:00:00 UTC2020-08-03 00:00:00 UTC000
Aug 32020-08-03 00:00:00 UTC2020-08-10 00:00:00 UTC000
Aug 102020-08-10 00:00:00 UTC2020-08-17 00:00:00 UTC000
Aug 172020-08-17 00:00:00 UTC2020-08-24 00:00:00 UTC000
Aug 242020-08-24 00:00:00 UTC2020-08-31 00:00:00 UTC000
Aug 312020-08-31 00:00:00 UTC2020-09-07 00:00:00 UTC000
Sep 72020-09-07 00:00:00 UTC2020-09-14 00:00:00 UTC000
Sep 142020-09-14 00:00:00 UTC2020-09-21 00:00:00 UTC000
Sep 212020-09-21 00:00:00 UTC2020-09-28 00:00:00 UTC000
Sep 282020-09-28 00:00:00 UTC2020-10-05 00:00:00 UTC000
Oct 52020-10-05 00:00:00 UTC2020-10-12 00:00:00 UTC000
Oct 122020-10-12 00:00:00 UTC2020-10-19 00:00:00 UTC000
Oct 192020-10-19 00:00:00 UTC2020-10-26 00:00:00 UTC000
Oct 262020-10-26 00:00:00 UTC2020-11-02 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 22020-11-02 00:00:00 UTC2020-11-09 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 92020-11-09 00:00:00 UTC2020-11-16 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 162020-11-16 00:00:00 UTC2020-11-23 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 232020-11-23 00:00:00 UTC2020-11-30 00:00:00 UTC000
Nov 302020-11-30 00:00:00 UTC2020-12-07 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 72020-12-07 00:00:00 UTC2020-12-14 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 142020-12-14 00:00:00 UTC2020-12-21 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 212020-12-21 00:00:00 UTC2020-12-28 00:00:00 UTC000
Dec 282020-12-28 00:00:00 UTC2021-01-04 00:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

2 sources
For decades, the FPGA vendors have had this fever dream of "an FPGA in every PC" -- either as an add-on card, or as part of the chipset on a motherboard -- that would enable a compiler or operating system to seamlessly accelerate arbitrary tasks on demand. In my opinion, the problem has always been their software: the FPGA vendor tools are slow, bloated monstrosities. The core of these tools are written by the big three EDA vendors (Cadence, Synopsys, and Mentor Graphics) rather than the FPGA vendors themselves. The licenses include ridiculous, paranoid restrictions [1] and force the FPGA vendors to keep their bitstream formats and timing databases secret [2] in order to prevent competition from other tool vendors. Most FPGA vendors didn't see this as a problem, but even the ones that did didn't have much of a choice, because the tool mar
Read the rest
ket is a cartel. Thankfully, we now have an open source toolchain [3] with support for a growing number of FPGA architectures [4], and using it vs. the vendor tools is like using gcc or llvm vs. a '90s era, non-compliant C++ compiler. It even has a real IR that isn't Verilog, which has made it easier to design new HDLs [5]. I don't see how a dynamic FPGA accelerator platform can be even remotely viable without this. It's the difference between a developer getting to choose between one of a few dozen pre-baked designs that lock up the entire FPGA (and needing to learn how to shovel data into it), vs. a compiler flag that can give you the option of unrolling any loop directly into any inactive region of FPGA fabric. It would be quite the cherry on top to see AMD build something interesting in this space. But unless they're willing to fully unencumber at least this one design, I think the effort is likely to fail. The open source guys are chomping at the bit to make this work, and have been making real progress lately. Meanwhile, the EDA vendors have been making promises, failing, and throwing tantrums for the last 20 years. It's time to write them off. [1] https://twitter.com/OlofKindgren/status/1052822081652617221?... [2] Imagine trying to write an assembler without being allowed to see the manual that tells you how instructions are encoded. It's like that, but the state-space is hundreds to thousands of bytes in multiple configurations rather than a few dozen bits. [3] https://github.com/YosysHQ/yosys [4] https://symbiflow.github.io/ [5] https://github.com/m-labs/nmigen
In AMD Patent Reveals Hybrid CPU-FPGA Design That Could Be Enabled by Xilinx Tech

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.