I think the question sums it up pretty well as to what I want: passing the value of a variable to a macro in SystemVerilog.
For example, what I want:
Say, there are 4 signals by the name of abc_X_def and I want to initialize all of them to 0.
So, without macros:
abc_0_def = 4'b0000;
abc_1_def = 4'b0000;
abc_2_def = 4'b0000;
abc_3_def = 4'b0000;
Now, the code that I have written is having a problem:
`define set_value(bit) abc_``bit``_def = 4'b0000
for (int i = 0; i < 4; i++) begin
`set_value(i);
end
The error is that it's trying to find the signal abc_i_def which is obviously wrong. Just wondering if it's possible to pass the actual value of the variable 'i' to the macro.
The preprocessor directives are evaluated by the preprocessor and modify the code that is presented to the compiler.
The for loop is a verilog construct that is evaluated by the compiler.
So your preprocessor is not evaluating the for loop. It sees:
`define `set_value(bit) abc_``bit``_def = 4'b0000
[some verilog]
`set_value(i);
[some verilog]
So 'i' is just i. It doesn't become a number until compilation.
Why don't you use local params with generate, so the local params are created in a loop at elaboration as the for loop is unrolled?
This is one of the many places that macros are a problem. Generate is a problem in other places (like when you want to control port lists).
I dug into this a bit more. Parameters and local parameters inside a generate are created a localparams in the scope of the generate. See here: System Verilog parameters in generate block. I had to get back to work before I could test it.
I would just use code and populate an array. This compiles in VCS:
module veritest
#(
parameter MAX_X = 5,
MAX_Y = 3,
MAX_Z = 2
)
(); // empty port list
logic [4:0] abc_def[1:MAX_X][1:MAX_Y][1:MAX_Z];
always #*
begin
for (integer z=1; z<(MAX_X+1);z=z+1)
for (integer y=1; y<(MAX_Y+1);y=y+1)
for (integer x=1; x<(MAX_X+1);x=x+1)
begin
abc_def[x][y][z] = 4'b0000;
end
end
endmodule
Since you said the naming conventions is out of your control, you should consider using another tool to generate the verilog for you.
You can have the code generated by your preferred programming then use an `include statement in your verilog file. Or you can go with an embedded route.
Perl had EP3 : http://search.cpan.org/~gspivey/Text-EP3-Verilog-1.00/Verilog.pm
Ruby has eRuby : http://www.tutorialspoint.com/ruby/eruby.htm
I'm sure something like it exists for other languages to. Such as Python, Tcl, JavaScript, etc.
Concept is the same, just a difference in embedded language and tool used for conversion.
Related
I have this code:
integer [31:0]R;
integer [15:0]R_f1;
integer [15:0]R_f2;
assign R_f1 = R[15:0];
assign R_f2 = R[31:16];
But it is not compiled because of assign.
What changes do I need to do ? It can also be in the header file.
There was a bug in the original implementation of Verilog-XL that it ignored the packed dimensions of integer declarations. And integer/int/byte did not have a fixed size. For these reasons, SystemVerilog disallows specifying packed dimensions for any of these built-in types. Use bit or logic instead.
Also, since you tagged this with SystemVerilog make sure the file has a *.sv suffix. An alternative to what you are trying to do is
integer [31:0]R;
let R_f1 = R[15:0];
let R_f2 = R[31:16];
Depending on the language you use. In verilog, only the net types can be assigned using continuous assignment. integer is not a net type, therefore theses assignments are not allowed in verilog. I guess you compiled your code in verilog mode and got the message about assignment statements.
Also packed dimensions on integer types are not allowed. So, the following declaration is illegal: integer [31:0]R;. Some compilers will just ignore the declaration. All integers are 32 bit wide in any case.
So, to fix it in verilog mode you can use always #* instead:
integer R = 10;
integer R_f1;
integer R_f2;
always #* R_f1 = R[15:0];
always #* R_f2 = R[31:16];
Though by the sound of your initial question, you need to use a different type of the data type, which allows you to have real vectors. In verilog they are reg and one of the net types, i.e. wire. With wires you can use assign statement, with reg you need to use always blocks. Something like the following:
reg[31:0] R = 10;
reg[15:0] R_f1;
reg[15:0] R_f2;
always #* R_f1 = R[15:0];
always #* R_f2 = R[31:16];
Since you marked your question as a system verilog question, you can use one of the system verilog types, i.e. logic or bit. If you use those, you can apply both, assign or always blocks to them. BTW, assign will also work for integeres.
logic[31:0] R = 10;
logic[15:0] R_f1;
logic[15:0] R_f2;
assign R_f1 = R[15:0];
assign R_f2 = R[31:16];
just make sure that you compile in a system-verilog mode.
I use the symbolic toolbox in matlab to generate some very long symbolic expressions. Then I use matlabFunction to generate a function file.
Say there are three parameters: p1, p2 and p3.
I have a cell with strings {'p1', 'p2', 'p3'}.
In the derivation of the model I generate symbolic variables p1, p2 and p3 out of them using eval in a loop and stack them in a vector par.
Then when in matlabFunction, I specify par as input.
Moreover, I save the cell string in a .mat file.
Then when I want to simulate this model, I can construct this parameter array using that cell of strings from the .mat file out of 30 available parameters and their values.
Advantages: No need to keep track of the different parameters if I add one to . I can change the order, mess around, but older models still work.
Disadvantage:
Turning things into a function file leads to this error (psi is one of the parameters):
Error: File: f_derive_model.m Line: 96 Column: 5
"psi" previously appeared to be used as a function or
command, conflicting with its use here as the name of a
variable.
A possible cause of this error is that you forgot to
initialize the variable, or you have initialized it
implicitly using load or eval.
Apparently some unnescescary checking is going on because the variable will be intialized in an eval statement.
Question: How can I avoid eval but keep the list of parameters indepent from the model stuff.
Code deriving the long equations:
% Model parameters
mdl.parameters = {'mp','mb','lp','lb','g','d','mP','mM','k','kt'};
par = [];
for i=1:length(mdl.parameters)
eval(strcat(mdl.parameters{i}, '=sym(''', mdl.parameters{i}, "');"));
eval(sprintf(['par = [par;' mdl.parameters{i} '];']));
end
%% Calculate stuff
matlabFunction(MM,'file',[modelName '_mass'],'vars',{par},'outputs',{'M'});
Code using the generated file:
getparams
load('m3d_1')
par = [];
for i=1:length(mdl.parameters)
eval(sprintf(['par = [par;params.' mdl.parameters{i} '];']));
end
See how, as long as I specify the correct value to for example params.mp, it always gets assigned to the input corresponding to the symbolic variable mp in the par vector. I do not want to lose that and have to keep track of the order and so on, nor do I want to call my functions with all the parameters one by one.
Actually, I see nothing wrong in your approach even if the "public opinion" affirms that it's better to avoid using the eval function. An alternative would be using the assignin function as follows:
% use 'caller' instead of 'base' if this code runs within a function
for i = 1:numel(mdl.parameters)
var_name = mdl.parameters{i};
assignin('base',var_name,sym(var_name));
end
In the second case (the one concerning the par variable) I would instead use the getfield function:
par_len = numel(mdl.parameters);
par = cell(par_len,1);
for i = 1:par_len
par{i} = getfield(params,mdl.parameters{i});
end
or, alternatively, this approach:
par_len = numel(mdl.parameters);
par = cell(par_len,1);
for i = 1:par_len
par{i} = params.(mdl.parameters{i});
end
It is occasionally convenient to use a function as a "constant" variable of sorts in MATLAB. But when I was using this feature recently, I ran into an unexpected error. When I run the MWE below, I get the error Undefined function or variable 'a'. despite the function being clearly available in the same file. When I comment out the if statement, the error goes away. This seems to imply that MATLAB is pre-interpreting a as a variable even though the variable assignment line is never reached, ignoring the fact that there is a function by the same name. Is this a MATLAB bug or is it somehow the desired behavior?
Here is the MWE:
function matlabBugTest( )
if false
a = 'foo';
end
a
end
function b = a()
b = 'bar';
end
Follow-up:
I know it seems weird to intentionally use the same name for a variable and a function, so I'll give an example of where this can be useful. For instance, you may want to use a function to store some constant (like a file path), but also want to be able to use a different value in case the function cannot be found. Such a case might look like:
if ~exist('pathConstant.m', 'file')
pathConstant = 'C:\some\path';
end
load(fullfile(pathConstant, 'filename.ext'));
I know that language design decisions are often difficult and complicated, but one of the more unfortunate consequences of MATLAB's choice here to ignore the function by the same name is that it breaks compatibility between functions and scripts/command line. For instance, the following runs without issue in a script:
if false
a = 'foo';
end
a
where the function a (shown above) is saved in its own file.
It has to do with how Matlab performs name-binding at compilation time. Because matlabBugTest has a line that assigns a value to a, a is determined to be a variable, and the later line with a is a reference to that variable and not a call to the local function. More modern versions of Matlab, like my R2015a install, gives a more clear error message:
At compilation, "a" was determined to be a variable and this variable is uninitialized. "a" is also a function name and previous versions of MATLAB would have called the
function. However, MATLAB 7 forbids the use of the same name in the same context as both a function and a variable.
It's not so much a bug, as it is an ambiguity introduced by the naming scheme that was given a default resolution method, which can be annoying if you have never encountered the problem before and m-lint doesn't mark it. Similar behavior occurs when variables are poofed into the workspace without initialization beforehand.
So the solution is to either change the name of the function or the variable to different things, which I would argue is good practice anyways.
In considering your follow-up example, I have noticed some interesting behavior in moving things around in the function. Firstly, if the function is either external or nested, you get the behavior discussed very well by Suever's answer. However, if the function is local, you can get around the limitation (at least you can in my R2014b and R2015a installs) by invoking the function prior to converting it to a variable as long as you initialize it or explicitly convert it to a variable at some point. Going through the cases, the following bodies of matlabBugTest perform thusly:
Fails:
a
if false
a = 'foo';
end
a
Runs:
a
if true
a = 'foo';
end
a
Runs:
a = a;
if false % runs with true as well.
a = 'foo';
end
a
I'm not entirely sure why this behavior is the way it is, but apparently the parser handles things differently depending on the scope of the function and the order of what symbols appear and in what contexts.
So assuming this behavior hasn't and will not change you could try something like:
pathConstant = pathConstant;
if ~exist('pathConstant.m', 'file')
pathConstant = 'C:\some\path';
end
load(fullfile(pathConstant, 'filename.ext'));
Though, entirely personal opinion here, I would do something like
pathConstant = getPathConstant();
if ~exist('pathConstant.m', 'file')
pathConstant = 'C:\some\path';
end
load(fullfile(pathConstant, 'filename.ext'));
Concerning breaking "compatibility between functions and scripts/command line", I don't really see this as an issue since those are two entirely different contexts when it comes to Matlab. You cannot define a named function on the command line nor in a script file; therefore, there is no burden on the Matlab JIT to properly and unambiguously determine whether a symbol is a function call or a variable since each line executes sequentially and is not compiled (aside from certain blocks of code the JIT is designed to recognize and optimize like loops in scripts). Now as to why the above juggling of declarations works, I'm not entirely sure since it relies on the Matlab JIT which I know nothing about (nor have I taken a compiler class, so I couldn't even form an academic reason if I wanted).
The reason that you get this behavior is likely that Matlab never have implemented scope resolution for any of their statements. Consider the following code,
(a)
if true
a = 'foo';
end
disp(a)
This would actually display "foo". On the other hand would,
(b)
if false
a = 'foo';
end
disp(a)
give you the error Undefined function or variable "a". So let us consider the following example,
(c,1)
enterStatement = false;
if enterStatement
a = 'foo';
end
disp(a)
(c,2)
enterStatement = mod(0,2);
if enterStatement
a = 'foo';
end
disp(a)
TroyHaskin clearly states the following in his answer
It has to do with how Matlab performs name-binding at compilation time. Because matlabBugTest has a line that assigns a value to a, a is determined to be a variable, and the later line with a is a reference to that variable and not a call to the local function
Matlab does not support constant expressions and does only a limited amout of static code analysis. In fact, if the if statement takes argument false, or if enterStatement is false, Matlab provides a warning, This statement (and possibly following ones) cannot be reached. If enterStatement is set to false Matlab also generates another warning, Variable a is used, but might be unset. However if enterStatement = mod(0,2), so to say if enterStatement calls a function, you get no warning at all. This means that if the example in the question was allowed then (c,2) would compile based on how the function were evaluated and that is a contradiction. This would mean that the code would have to compile based on its runtime results.
Note: Sure it could be good if Matlab could generate an error in case the enterStatement was an expression instead of a constant false, but whether or not this is possible it would depend on implementation I guess.
I'm looking for benefits of "automatic" in Systemverilog.
I have been seeing the "automatic" factorial example. But I can't get though them. Does anyone know why we use "automatic"?
Traditionally, Verilog has been used for modelling hardware at RTL and at Gate level abstractions. Since both RTL and Gate level abstraction are static/fixed (non-dynamic), Verilog supported only static variables. So for example, any reg or wire in Verilog would be instantiated/mapped at the beginning of simulation and would remain mapped in the simulation memory till the end of simulation. As a result, you can take dump of any wire/reg as a waveform, and the reg/wire would have a value from the beginning till the end, since it is always mapped. In a programmers perspective, such variables are termed static. In C/C++ world, to declare such a variable, you will have to use storage class specifier static. In Verilog every variable is implicitly static.
Note that until the advent of SystemVerilog, Verilog supported only static variables. Even though Verilog also supported some constructs for modelling at behavioural abstraction, the support was limited by absence of automatic storage class.
automatic (called auto in software world) storage class variables are mapped on the stack. When a function is called, all the local (non-static) variables declared in the function are mapped to individual locations in the stack. Since such variables exist only on the stack, they cease to exist as soon as the execution of the function is complete and the stack correspondingly shrinks.
Amongst other advantages, one possibility that this storage class enables is recursive functions. In Verilog world, a function can not be re-entrant. Recursive (or re-entrant) functions do not serve any useful purpose in a world where automatic storage class is not available. To understand this, you can imagine a re-entrant function as a function which dynamically makes multiple recursive instantiations of itself. Each instance gets its automatic variables mapped on the stack. As we progress into the recursion, the stack grows and each function gets to make its computations using its own set of variables. When the function calls return the computed values are collated and a final result made available. With only static variables, each function call will store the variable values at the same common locations thus erasing any benefit of having multiple calls (instantiations).
Coming to the factorial algorithm, it is relatively easy to conceptualize factorial as a recursive algorithm. In maths we write factorial(n) = n(factial(n-1))*. So you need to calculate factorial(n-1) in order to know factorial(n). Note that recursion can not be completed without a terminating case, which in case of factorial is n=1.
function automatic int factorial;
input int n;
if (n > 1)
factorial = factorial (n - 1) * n;
else
factorial = 1;
endfunction
Without automatic storage class, since all variables in a function would be mapped to a fixed location, when we call factorial(n-1) from inside factorial(n), the recursive call would overwrite any variable inside the caller context. In the factorial function as defined in the above code snippet, if we do not specify the storage class as automatic, both n and the result factorial would be overwritten by the recursive call to factorial(n-1). As a result the variable n would consecutively be overwritten as n-1, n-2, n-3 and so on till we reach the terminating condition of n = 1. The terminating recursive call to factorial would have a value of 1 assigned to n and when the recursion unwinds, factorial(n-1) * n would evaluate to 1 in each stage.
With automatic storage class, each recursive function call would have its own place in the memory (actually on the stack) to store variable n. As a result consecutive calls to factorial will not overwrite variable n of the caller. As a result when the recursion unwinds, we shall have the right value for factorial(n) as n*(n-1)(n-2) .. *1.
Note that it is possible to define factorial using iteration as well. And that can be done without use of automatic storage class. But in many cases, recursion makes it possible for the user to code algorithms in a more intuitive fashion.
I propose 1 example as below(using fork...join_none):
Ex.1 (non-using automatic) : value output will be "3 3 3 3". because i take the latest value after exit for loop, i is stored in static memory location. This may be a bug in your code.
initial begin
for( int i =0; i<=3 ; i++)
fork
$write ("%d ", i);
join_none
end
Ex.2 (using automatic) : value output will be "0 1 2 3". Because in each loop, value of i is copied to k, and fork..join_none spawn a thread with each value of k ( each loop will locate 1 memory space for k : k0, k1, k2, k3):
initial begin
for( int i =0; i<=3 ; i++)
fork
automatic int k = i;
$write ("%d ", k);
join_none
end
Another example is the use of fork join inside for loop -
Without the use of automatic, the fork join inside the for loop will not work correctly.
for (int i=0; i<`SOME_VALUE ; i++) begin
automatic int id=i;
fork
task/function using the id above ;
...
join_none
end
I've come into ownership of a bunch of MATLAB code and have noticed a bunch of "magic numbers" scattered about the code. Typically, I like to make those constants in languages like C, Ruby, PHP, etc. When Googling this problem, I found that the "official" way of having constants is to define functions that return the constant value. Seems kludgey, especially because MATLAB can be finicky when allowing more than one function per file.
Is this really the best option?
I'm tempted to use / make something like the C Preprocessor to do this for me. (I found that something called mpp was made by someone else in a similar predicament, but it looks abandoned. The code doesn't compile, and I'm not sure if it would meet my needs.)
Matlab has constants now. The newer (R2008a+) "classdef" style of Matlab OOP lets you define constant class properties. This is probably the best option if you don't require back-compatibility to old Matlabs. (Or, conversely, is a good reason to abandon back-compatibility.)
Define them in a class.
classdef MyConstants
properties (Constant = true)
SECONDS_PER_HOUR = 60*60;
DISTANCE_TO_MOON_KM = 384403;
end
end
Then reference them from any other code using dot-qualification.
>> disp(MyConstants.SECONDS_PER_HOUR)
3600
See the Matlab documentation for "Object-Oriented Programming" under "User Guide" for all the details.
There are a couple minor gotchas. If code accidentally tries to write to a constant, instead of getting an error, it will create a local struct that masks the constants class.
>> MyConstants.SECONDS_PER_HOUR
ans =
3600
>> MyConstants.SECONDS_PER_HOUR = 42
MyConstants =
SECONDS_PER_HOUR: 42
>> whos
Name Size Bytes Class Attributes
MyConstants 1x1 132 struct
ans 1x1 8 double
But the damage is local. And if you want to be thorough, you can protect against it by calling the MyConstants() constructor at the beginning of a function, which forces Matlab to parse it as a class name in that scope. (IMHO this is overkill, but it's there if you want it.)
function broken_constant_use
MyConstants(); % "import" to protect assignment
MyConstants.SECONDS_PER_HOUR = 42 % this bug is a syntax error now
The other gotcha is that classdef properties and methods, especially statics like this, are slow. On my machine, reading this constant is about 100x slower than calling a plain function (22 usec vs. 0.2 usec, see this question). If you're using a constant inside a loop, copy it to a local variable before entering the loop. If for some reason you must use direct access of constants, go with a plain function that returns the value.
For the sake of your sanity, stay away from the preprocessor stuff. Getting that to work inside the Matlab IDE and debugger (which are very useful) would require deep and terrible hacks.
I usually just define a variable with UPPER_CASE and place near the top of the file. But you have to take the responsibly of not changing its value.
Otherwise you can use MATLAB classes to define named constants.
MATLAB doesn't have an exact const equivalent. I recommend NOT using global for constants - for one thing, you need to make sure they are declared everywhere you want to use them. I would create a function that returns the value(s) you want. You might check out this blog post for some ideas.
You might some of these answers How do I create enumerated types in MATLAB? useful. But in short, no there is not a "one-line" way of specifying variables whose value shouldn't change after initial setting in MATLAB.
Any way you do it, it will still be somewhat of a kludge. In past projects, my approach to this was to define all the constants as global variables in one script file, invoke the script at the beginning of program execution to initialize the variables, and include "global MYCONST;" statements at the beginning of any function that needed to use MYCONST. Whether or not this approach is superior to the "official" way of defining a function to return a constant value is a matter of opinion that one could argue either way. Neither way is ideal.
My way of dealing with constants that I want to pass to other functions is to use a struct:
% Define constants
params.PI = 3.1416;
params.SQRT2 = 1.414;
% Call a function which needs one or more of the constants
myFunction( params );
It's not as clean as C header files, but it does the job and avoids MATLAB globals. If you wanted the constants all defined in a separate file (e.g., getConstants.m), that would also be easy:
params = getConstants();
Don't call a constant using myClass.myconst without creating an instance first! Unless speed is not an issue. I was under the impression that the first call to a constant property would create an instance and then all future calls would reference that instance, (Properties with Constant Values), but I no longer believe that to be the case. I created a very basic test function of the form:
tic;
for n = 1:N
a = myObj.field;
end
t = toc;
With classes defined like:
classdef TestObj
properties
field = 10;
end
end
or:
classdef TestHandleObj < handle
properties
field = 10;
end
end
or:
classdef TestConstant
properties (Constant)
field = 10;
end
end
For different cases of objects, handle-objects, nested objects etc (as well as assignment operations). Note that these were all scalars; I didn't investigate arrays, cells or chars. For N = 1,000,000 my results (for total elapsed time) were:
Access(s) Assign(s) Type of object/call
0.0034 0.0042 'myObj.field'
0.0033 0.0042 'myStruct.field'
0.0034 0.0033 'myVar' //Plain old workspace evaluation
0.0033 0.0042 'myNestedObj.obj.field'
0.1581 0.3066 'myHandleObj.field'
0.1694 0.3124 'myNestedHandleObj.handleObj.field'
29.2161 - 'TestConstant.const' //Call directly to class(supposed to be faster)
0.0034 - 'myTestConstant.const' //Create an instance of TestConstant
0.0051 0.0078 'TestObj > methods' //This calls get and set methods that loop internally
0.1574 0.3053 'TestHandleObj > methods' //get and set methods (internal loop)
I also created a Java class and ran a similar test:
12.18 17.53 'jObj.field > in matlab for loop'
0.0043 0.0039 'jObj.get and jObj.set loop N times internally'
The overhead in calling the Java object is high, but within the object, simple access and assign operations happen as fast as regular matlab objects. If you want reference behavior to boot, Java may be the way to go. I did not investigate object calls within nested functions, but I've seen some weird things. Also, the profiler is garbage when it comes to a lot of this stuff, which is why I switched to manually saving the times.
For reference, the Java class used:
public class JtestObj {
public double field = 10;
public double getMe() {
double N = 1000000;
double val = 0;
for (int i = 1; i < N; i++) {
val = this.field;
}
return val;
}
public void setMe(double val) {
double N = 1000000;
for (int i = 1; i < N; i++){
this.field = val;
}
}
}
On a related note, here's a link to a table of NIST constants: ascii table and a matlab function that returns a struct with those listed values: Matlab FileExchange
I use a script with simple constants in capitals and include teh script in other scripts tr=that beed them.
LEFT = 1;
DOWN = 2;
RIGHT = 3; etc.
I do not mind about these being not constant. If I write "LEFT=3" then I wupold be plain stupid and there is no cure against stupidity anyway, so I do not bother.
But I really hate the fact that this method clutters up my workspace with variables that I would never have to inspect. And I also do not like to use sothing like "turn(MyConstants.LEFT)" because this makes longer statements like a zillion chars wide, making my code unreadible.
What I would need is not a variable but a possibility to have real pre-compiler constants. That is: strings that are replaced by values just before executing the code. That is how it should be. A constant should not have to be a variable. It is only meant to make your code more readible and maintainable. MathWorks: PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE. It can't be that hard to implement this. . .