Indeed, differences in tools are a central consideration when choosing between a digital signal processor and a general-purpose processor (GPP).

DSP vendors often take a go-it-alone approach when it comes to tools: In many cases, the only tool set available for a DSP is the vendor's internally developed tool set.

In contrast, general-purpose processor vendors often pay two or more third-party tool vendors to develop tool sets. And if the processor is popular enough, tool providers will develop tools on their own initiative. As a result, developers using typical general-purpose processors can choose from a wide selection of tools.

Although it expands users' choices, paying a third-party vendor to develop tools has some disadvantages. The pro-cessor vendor has a uniquely deep understanding of the processor. The processor vendor is also likely to have a superior understanding of its target applications and its customers' needs. Both types of knowledge enable the processor vendor to optimize the tools in ways that third-party vendors would not, and to include useful features that third-party vendors would not include. This is particularly true for DSP vendors, whose processors, target applications, and customers are typically specialized in some way.

On the other hand, there is little room for differentiation in generic tool components such as the compiler front end, and processor vendors usually have no special expertise in such components. For those components, third-party offerings are often superior-and tool providers can often create the components faster than the processor vendor can.

Given these trade-offs, it is not surprising that a few processor vendors are now mixing elements from the two approaches. In this hybrid approach, the processor vendor develops the tool components that benefit most from processor- and application-specific optimizations, such as the compiler back end. Meanwhile, the third-party vendor focuses on the more generic components, such as the compiler front end.

As tools become more important, processor vendors targeting signal-processing applications must take a hard look at their tool-development strategies. Ideally, their tools should offer the specialized features traditionally associated with DSP tools and the broad range of options associated with general-purpose processor tools. For many, the best way to achieve both goals will be a hybrid approach.

Jeff Bier is the general manager of Berkeley Design Technology Inc. (www.BDTI.com), a DSP technology analysis and software development company. BDTI's Kenton Williston contributed to this column.