Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page
Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert

Daya Nadamuni

dblp:87/322 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2002
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Systems, architecture and hardware · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
1 paper
Electronic design automation · 50% Integrated circuit design · 38% Embedded and real-time systems · 12%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Electronic design automation
hardware/software co-design		 0.012002
Unified tools for SoC embedded systems: mission critical, mission impossible or mission irrelevant? · DAC 2002
Integrated circuit design › system-on-chip
system-on-chip design		 0.012002
Unified tools for SoC embedded systems: mission critical, mission impossible or mission irrelevant? · DAC 2002
Electronic design automation › CAD framework
design tool integration		 0.012002
Unified tools for SoC embedded systems: mission critical, mission impossible or mission irrelevant? · DAC 2002
Embedded and real-time systems › embedded software engineering
embedded software development		 0.012002
Unified tools for SoC embedded systems: mission critical, mission impossible or mission irrelevant? · DAC 2002
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2002 Unified tools for SoC embedded systems: mission critical, mission impossible or mission irrelevant?
abstract
As designers struggle with developing application solutions consisting of complex systems-on-a-chip with a significant software component, they must deal with a diversity of tools with very different philosophies and assumptions, to help manage this task. On one hand are tools which assume a clean separation between the hardware and software parts of the design with an abstraction of the hardware available for software development. On the other hand are tools that try to handle the hardware and software parts of the design concurrently. What drives these different philosophies? Which of these is critical for emerging system designs? Which of these is viable going forward? Our panel of experts consisting of designers, embedded software tool providers, system design tool providers and an academic will answer these challenging questions.
Gary Smith 0001, Daya Nadamuni, Sharad Malik, Rick Chapman, John Fogelin, Kurt Keutzer, Grant Martin, Brian Bailey
 DAC2