A Golden Age of Hardware Description Languages: Applying Programming Language Techniques to Improve Design Productivity

Leading experts have declared that there is an impending golden age of computer architecture. During this age, the rate at which architects will be able to innovate will be directly tied to the design and implementation of the hardware description languages they use. Thus, the programming languages community stands on the critical path to this new golden age. This implies that we are also on the cusp of a golden age of hardware description languages. In this paper, we discuss the intellectual challenges facing researchers interested in hardware description language design, compilers, and formal methods. The major theme will be identifying opportunities to apply programming language techniques to address issues in hardware design productivity. Then, we present a vision for a multi-language system that provides a framework for developing solutions to these intellectual problems. This vision is based on a meta-programmed host language combined with a core embedded hardware description language that is used as the basis for the research and development of a sea of domain-specific languages. Central to the design of this system is the core language which is based on an abstraction that provides a general mechanism for the composition of hardware components described in any language

PEak: A Single Source of Truth for Hardware Design and Verification

Domain-specific languages for hardware can significantly enhance designer productivity, but sometimes at the cost of ease of verification. On the other hand, ISA specification languages are too static to be used during early stage design space exploration. We present PEak, an open-source hardware design and specification language, which aims to improve both design productivity and verification capability. PEak does this by providing a single source of truth for functional models, formal specifications, and RTL. PEak has been used in several academic projects, and PEak-generated RTL has been included in three fabricated hardware accelerators. In these projects, the formal capabilities of PEak were crucial for enabling both novel design space exploration techniques and automated compiler synthesis

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Rehabilitation for the 10- to 18-Year-Old Adolescent Athlete:Practice Guidelines Based on International Delphi Consensus

Background:There are 2 treatment options for adolescent athletes with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries—rehabilitation alone (nonsurgical treatment) or ACL reconstruction plus rehabilitation. However, there is no clear consensus on how to include strength and neuromuscular training during each phase of rehabilitation.Purpose:To develop a practical consensus for adolescent ACL rehabilitation to help provide care to this age group using an international Delphi panel.Study Design:Consensus statement.Methods:A 3-round online international Delphi consensus study was conducted. A mix of open and closed literature-based statements were formulated and sent out to an international panel of 20 ACL rehabilitation experts. Statements were divided into 3 domains as follows: (1) nonsurgical rehabilitation; (2) prehabilitation; and (3) postoperative rehabilitation. Consensus was defined as 70% agreement between panel members.Results:Panel members agreed that rehabilitation should consist of 3 criterion-based phases, with continued injury prevention serving as a fourth phase. They also reached a consensus on rehabilitation being different for 10- to 16-year-olds compared with 17- and 18-year-olds, with a need to distinguish between prepubertal (Tanner stage 1) and mid- to postpubertal (Tanner stages 2-5) athletes. The panel members reached a consensus on the following topics: educational topics during rehabilitation; psychological interventions during rehabilitation; additional consultation of the orthopaedic surgeon; duration of postoperative rehabilitation; exercises during phase 1 of nonsurgical and postoperative rehabilitation; criteria for progression from phase 1 to phase 2; resistance training during phase 2; jumping exercises during phase 2; criteria for progression from phase 2 to phase 3; and criteria for return to sports (RTS). The most notable differences in recommendations for prepubertal compared with mid- to postpubertal athletes were described for resistance training and RTS criteria.Conclusion:Together with available evidence, this international Delphi statement provides a framework based on expert consensus and describes a practice guideline for adolescent ACL rehabilitation, which can be used in day-to-day practice. This is an important step toward reducing practice inconsistencies, improving the quality of rehabilitation after adolescent ACL injuries, and closing the evidence-practice gap while waiting for further studies to provide clarity