I noticed this interesting thing about the max() and min() functions in SV LRM (1800-2012) 7.12 (Array manipulation methods). I tried out the max() and min() functions in a dummy SV file
int a[3] = {0,5,5};
int q[$];
int b;
q = a.max(); // legal
b = a.max(); // illegal
The illegal statement error was
Incompatible complex type assignment
Type of source expression is incompatible with type of target expression.
Mismatching types cannot be used in assignments, initializations and
instantiations. The type of the target is 'int', while the type of the
source is 'int$[$]'.
So I commented out the illegal statement and tested it. It compiled and ran fine but I was hoping to get some more insight as to why the function returns a queue and not a single element - I printed out the contents of q and the size, but the size is still 1 and 5 is being printed just once. Kind of redundant then to make the max() and min() functions return a queue ?
The "SystemVerilog for Verification" book by Chris Spear and Greg Tumbush has a good explanation on this topic in Chapter 2.6.2, which I am quoting below:
"The array locator methods find data in an unpacked array. At first
you may wonder why these return a queue of values. After all, there
is only one maximum value in an array. However, SystemVerilog needs a
queue for the case when you ask for a value from an empty queue or
dynamic array."
It returns a queue to deal with empty queues and when the with () conditions have no matches. The the empty queue return is a a way to differentiate a true match from no matches.
Consider the below code. to find the minimum value of a that is greater than 5. a has data but none of its entries have above 5. b is empty, so it will return an empty. c will return 7.
int a[3] = '{0,5,5};
int b[$] = '{};
int c[4] = '{0,15,5,7};
int q[$];
q = a.min() with (item > 5); // no items >5, will return an empty queue
q = b.min(); // queue is empty, will return an empty queue
q = c.min() with (item > 5); // will return a queue of size 1 with value 7
I believe the example results as per Greg's answer is not correct.
As per System Verilog Language:
min() returns the element with the minimum value or whose expression evaluates to a minimum.
max() returns the element with the maximum value or whose expression evaluates to a maximum.
So, when with expression is evaluated, the resultant value will be:
a.min() with (item > 5); {0,0,0} -> Minimum is 0 and corresponding item is 5.
c.min() with (item > 5); {0,1,0,1}-> Minimum is 0 and corresponding item is 5.
Since, example demonstrates the usage of min, the result will be:
q = a.min() with (item > 5); // A queue of size 1 with value 5.
q = c.min() with (item > 5); //A queue of size 1 with value 5.
Related
I have a C mex routine that is iterating over subfields of a structure. Sometimes calling mxGetFieldByNumber() returns NULL when mxGetFieldNameByNumber() returns a string for the same field idx. Here is a toy:
numFields = getNumberOfFields( currentField );
for( fieldIdx = 0; fieldIdx < numFields; fieldIdx ++){
subField = mxGetFieldByNumber( currentField, 0 , fieldIdx );
fieldName = mxGetFieldNameByNumber(currentField, fieldIdx );
}
I have read through the documentation of both functions. A NULL can be returned if (in this example) currentField were not a mxArray which I know is not the case because mxGetFieldNameByNumber() returns something sensible. Insufficient heap space could be the problem but I've checked that and it is on 400kb. NULL can also be returned when no value is assigned to the specified field but I've looked and it appears the value is zero.
Any thoughts?
When a struct is created at the MATLAB level or in a mex routine via mxCreateStruct, not all field elements are necessarily populated. In such case, MATLAB physically stores a NULL pointer (i.e., 0) in those data spots (a struct is essentially an array of mxArray pointers). E.g., take the following code snippet assuming X doesn't exist yet:
X.a = 5;
X(2).b = 7;
The X struct variable actually has four elements, namely X(1).a, X(1).b, X(2).a, and X(2).b. But you only set two of these elements. What does MATLAB do with the other elements? Answer: It simply stores NULL pointers for those spots. If you subsequently access those NULL spots in your MATLAB code, MATLAB will simply create an empty double matrix on the fly.
At the mex level, a similar thing happens. When you first create the struct with mxCreateStruct, MATLAB simply fills all of the element spots with NULL values. Then you can populate them in your code if you want, but note that leaving them as NULL is perfectly acceptable for returning back to MATLAB. The routine mxGetFieldByNumber actually gets the element mxArray pointer, and mxGetFieldNameByNumber gets the name of the field itself ... two very different things. If you get a NULL result from a valid mxGetFieldByNumber call (i.e. your index is not out of range), that simply means this element was never set to anything. You should never get a NULL result from a valid mxGetFieldNameByNumber call, since all field names are required to exist.
If you were to pass in the X created above to a mex routine and then examine prhs[0] you would find the following:
mxGetFieldByNumber(prhs[0],0,0)
returns a pointer to an mxArray that is the scalar double 5
mxGetFieldByNumber(prhs[0],0,1)
returns a NULL pointer
mxGetFieldByNumber(prhs[0],1,0)
returns a NULL pointer
mxGetFieldByNumber(prhs[0],1,1)
returns a pointer to an mxArray that is the scalar double 7
mxGetFieldNameByNumber(prhs[0],0)
returns a pointer to the string "a"
mxGetFieldNameByNumber(prhs[0],1)
returns a pointer to the string "b"
I am a new SystemVerilog user and I have faced a strange (from my point of view) behavior of combination of unique method called for fixed array with with operator.
module test();
int arr[12] = '{1,2,1,2,3,4,5,8,9,10,10,8};
int q[$]
initial begin
q = arr.unique() with (item > 5 ? item : 0);
$display("the result is %p",q);
end
I've expected to get queue {8,9,10} but instead I have got {1,8,9,10}.
Why there is a one at the index 0 ?
You are trying to combine the operation of the find method with unique. Unfortunately, it does not work the way you expect. unique returns the element, not the expression in the with clause, which is 0 for elements 1,2,3,4 and 5. The simulator could have chosen any of those elements to represent the unique value for 0(and different simulators do pick different values)
You need to write them separately:
module test();
int arr[$] = '{1,2,1,2,3,4,5,8,9,10,10,8};
int q[$]
initial begin
arr = arr.find() with (item > 5);
q = arr.unique();
$display("the result is %p",q);
end
Update explaining the original results
The with clause generates a list of values to check for uniqueness
'{0,0,0,0,0,0,0,8,9,10,10,8};
^. ^ ^ ^
Assuming the simulator chooses the first occurrence of a replicated value to remain, then it returns {arr[0], arr[7], arr[8], arr[9]} from the original array, which is {1,8,9,10}
In q, I am trying to call a function f on an incrementing argument id while some condition is not met.
The function f creates a table of random length (between 1 and 5) with a column identifier which is dependent on the input id:
f:{[id] len:(1?1 2 3 4 5)0; ([] identifier:id+til len; c2:len?`a`b`c)}
Starting with id=0, f should be called while (count f[id])>1, i.e. so long until a table of length 1 is produced. The id should be incremented each step.
With the "repeat" adverb I can do the while condition and the starting value:
{(count x)>1} f/0
but how can I keep incrementing the id?
Not entirely sure if this will fix your issue but I was able to get it to work by incrementing id inside the function and returning it with each iteration:
q)g:{[id] len:(1?1 2 3 4 5)0; id[0]:([] identifier:id[1]+til len; c2:len?`a`b`c);#[id;1;1+]}
In this case id is a 2 element list where the first element is the table you are returning (initially ()) and the second item is the id. By amending the exit condition I was able to make it stop whenever the output table had a count of 1:
q)g/[{not 1=count x 0};(();0)]
+`identifier`c2!(,9;,`b)
10
If you just need the table you can run first on the output of the above expression:
q)first g/[{not 1=count x 0};(();0)]
identifier c2
-------------
3 a
The issue with the function f is that when using over and scan the output if each iteration becomes the input for the next. In your case your function is working on a numeric value put on the second pass it would get passed a table.
There is some misunderstanding between me and Scala
0 or 1?
object Fun extends App {
def foo(list:List[Int], count:Int = 0): Int = {
if (list.isEmpty) { // when this is true
return 1 // and we are about to return 1, the code goes to the next line
}
foo(list.tail, count + 1) // I know I do not use "return here" ...
count
}
val result = foo( List(1,2,3) )
println ( result ) // 0
}
Why does it print 0?
Why does recursion work even without "return"
(when it is in the middle of function, but not in the end)?
Why doesn't it return 1? when I use "return" explicitly?
--- EDIT:
It will work if I use return here "return foo(list.tail, count + 1)'.
Bu it does NOT explain (for me) why "return 1" does not work above.
If you read my full explanation below then the answers to your three questions should all be clear, but here's a short, explicit summary for everyone's convenience:
Why does it print 0? This is because the method call was returning count, which had a default value of 0—so it returns 0 and you print 0. If you called it with count=5 then it would print 5 instead. (See the example using println below.)
Why does recursion work even without "return" (when it is in the middle of function, but not in the end)? You're making a recursive call, so the recursion happens, but you weren't returning the result of the recursive call.
Why doesn't it return 1? when I use "return" explicitly? It does, but only in the case when list is empty. If list is non-empty then it returns count instead. (Again, see the example using println below.)
Here's a quote from Programming in Scala by Odersky (the first edition is available online):
The recommended style for methods is in fact to avoid having explicit, and especially multiple, return statements. Instead, think of each method as an expression that yields one value, which is returned. This philosophy will encourage you to make methods quite small, to factor larger methods into multiple smaller ones. On the other hand, design choices depend on the design context, and Scala makes it easy to write methods that have multiple, explicit returns if that's what you desire. [link]
In Scala you very rarely use the return keyword, but instead take advantage that everything in an expression to propagate the return value back up to the top-level expression of the method, and that result is then used as the return value. You can think of return as something more like break or goto, which disrupts the normal control flow and might make your code harder to reason about.
Scala doesn't have statements like Java, but instead everything is an expression, meaning that everything returns a value. That's one of the reasons why Scala has Unit instead of void—because even things that would have been void in Java need to return a value in Scala. Here are a few examples about how expressions work that are relevant to your code:
Things that are expressions in Java act the same in Scala. That means the result of 1+1 is 2, and the result of x.y() is the return value of the method call.
Java has if statements, but Scala has if expressions. This means that the Scala if/else construct acts more like the Java ternary operator. Therefore, if (x) y else z is equivalent to x ? y : z in Java. A lone if like you used is the same as if (x) y else Unit.
A code block in Java is a statement made up of a group of statements, but in Scala it's an expression made up of a group of expressions. A code block's result is the result of the last expression in the block. Therefore, the result of { o.a(); o.b(); o.c() } is whatever o.c() returned. You can make similar constructs with the comma operator in C/C++: (o.a(), o.b(), o.c()). Java doesn't really have anything like this.
The return keyword breaks the normal control flow in an expression, causing the current method to immediately return the given value. You can think of it kind of like throwing an exception, both because it's an exception to the normal control flow, and because (like the throw keyword) the resulting expression has type Nothing. The Nothing type is used to indicate an expression that never returns a value, and thus can essentially be ignored during type inference. Here's simple example showing that return has the result type of Nothing:
def f(x: Int): Int = {
val nothing: Nothing = { return x }
throw new RuntimeException("Can't reach here.")
}
Based on all that, we can look at your method and see what's going on:
def foo(list:List[Int], count:Int = 0): Int = {
// This block (started by the curly brace on the previous line
// is the top-level expression of this method, therefore its result
// will be used as the result/return value of this method.
if (list.isEmpty) {
return 1 // explicit return (yuck)
}
foo(list.tail, count + 1) // recursive call
count // last statement in block is the result
}
Now you should be able to see that count is being used as the result of your method, except in the case when you break the normal control flow by using return. You can see that the return is working because foo(List(), 5) returns 1. In contrast, foo(List(0), 5) returns 5 because it's using the result of the block, count, as the return value. You can see this clearly if you try it:
println(foo(List())) // prints 1 because list is empty
println(foo(List(), 5)) // prints 1 because list is empty
println(foo(List(0))) // prints 0 because count is 0 (default)
println(foo(List(0), 5)) // prints 5 because count is 5
You should restructure your method so that the value that the body is an expression, and the return value is just the result of that expression. It looks like you're trying to write a method that returns the number of items in the list. If that's the case, this is how I'd change it:
def foo(list:List[Int], count:Int = 0): Int = {
if (list.isEmpty) count
else foo(list.tail, count + 1)
}
When written this way, in the base case (list is empty) it returns the current item count, otherwise it returns the result of the recursive call on the list's tail with count+1.
If you really want it to always return 1 you can change it to if (list.isEmpty) 1 instead, and it will always return 1 because the base case will always return 1.
You're returning the value of count from the first call (that is, 0), not the value from the recursive call of foo.
To be more precise, in you code, you don't use the returned value of the recursive call to foo.
Here is how you can fix it:
def foo(list:List[Int], count:Int = 0): Int = {
if (list.isEmpty) {
1
} else {
foo(list.tail, count + 1)
}
}
This way, you get 1.
By the way, don't use return. It doesn't do always what you would expect.
In Scala, a function return implicitly the last value. You don't need to explicitly write return.
Your return works, just not the way you expect because you're ignoring its value. If you were to pass an empty list, you'd get 1 as you expect.
Because you're not passing an empty list, your original code works like this:
foo called with List of 3 elements and count 0 (call this recursion 1)
list is not empty, so we don't get into the block with return
we recursively enter foo, now with 2 elements and count 1 (recursion level 2)
list is not empty, so we don't get into the block with return
we recursively enter foo, now with 1 element and count 2 (recursion level 3)
list is not empty, so we don't get into the block with return
we now enter foo with no elements and count 3 (recursion level 4)
we enter the block with return and return 1
we're back to recursion level 3. The result of the call to foo from which we just came back in neither assigned nor returned, so it's ignored. We proceed to the next line and return count, which is the same value that was passed in, 2
the same thing happens on recursion levels 2 and 1 - we ignore the return value of foo and instead return the original count
the value of count on the recursion level 1 was 0, which is the end result
The fact that you do not have a return in front of foo(list.tail, count + 1) means that, after you return from the recursion, execution is falling through and returning count. Since 0 is passed as a default value for count, once you return from all of the recursed calls, your function is returning the original value of count.
You can see this happening if you add the following println to your code:
def foo(list:List[Int], count:Int = 0): Int = {
if (list.isEmpty) { // when this is true
return 1 // and we are about to return 1, the code goes to the next line
}
foo(list.tail, count + 1) // I know I do not use "return here" ...
println ("returned from foo " + count)
count
}
To fix this you should add a return in front of foo(list.tail.....).
you return count in your program which is a constant and is initialized with 0, so that is what you are returning at the top level of your recursion.
I wrote a code for concatenation as below:
module p2;
int n[1:2][1:3] = {2{{3{1}}}};
initial
begin
$display("val:%d",n[2][1]);
end
endmodule
It is showing errors.
Please explain?
Unpacked arrays require a '{} format. See IEEE Std 1800-2012 § 5.11 (or search for '{ in the LRM for many examples).
Therefore update your assignment to:
int n[1:2][1:3] = '{2{'{3{1}}}};
int n[1:2][1:3] = {2{{3{1}}}};
Just looking at {3{1}} this is a 96 bit number 3 integers concatenated together.
It is likely that {3{1'b1}} was intended.
The main issue looks to be the the left hand side is an unpacked array, and the left hand side is a packed array.
{ 2 { {3{1'b1}} } } => 6'b111_111
What is required is [[3'b111],[3'b111]],
From IEEE std 1800-2009 the array assignments section will be of interest here
10.9.1 Array assignment patterns
Concatenation braces are used to construct and deconstruct simple bit vectors.
A similar syntax is used to support the construction and deconstruction of arrays. The expressions shall match element for element, and the braces shall match the array dimensions. Each expression item shall be evaluated in the context of an
assignment to the type of the corresponding element in the array. In other words, the following examples are not required to cause size warnings:
bit unpackedbits [1:0] = '{1,1}; // no size warning required as
// bit can be set to 1
int unpackedints [1:0] = '{1'b1, 1'b1}; // no size warning required as
// int can be set to 1’b1
A syntax resembling replications (see 11.4.12.1) can be used in array assignment patterns as well. Each replication shall represent an entire single dimension.
unpackedbits = '{2 {y}} ; // same as '{y, y}
int n[1:2][1:3] = '{2{'{3{y}}}}; // same as '{'{y,y,y},'{y,y,y}}