Philipp A Hartmann

Members
  • Content count

    382
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Philipp A Hartmann

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Duisburg, DE

Recent Profile Visitors

684 profile views
  1. Bump thread to the top: Don't forget to submit your proposals! :-)
  2. You can chose whatever name you want in the target. You just register them to different sockets: // register different functions for each socket socket1.register_b_transport(this, &target::first_b_transport); socket2.register_b_transport(this, &target::second_b_transport); // in testbench, call b_transport on different sockets (assuming init_socket1/2 bound to target->socket1/2) init_socket1->b_transport(...); // will call target::first_b_transport init_socket2->b_transport(...); // will call target::second_b_transport /Philipp
  3. But the above code should work. Just call "b_transport" (not "first_b_transport" and "second_b_transport") from your testbench. /Philipp
  4. Why do you try to call b_transport_2(...) anywhere in your code? How do you register these functions to the simple socket? /Philipp
  5. Your current implementation still depends on the scheduling order of the simulation kernel: If the mutex is not locked, the first scheduled process will obtain the lock, irrespectively of any current or future locking attempts in the same evaluation phase. For example, if one process repeatedly tries to lock the mutex directly after releasing it, the lock will be granted, even if there are other processes already waiting: void procA() { while(true) { mtx.lock(); // do some work wait( 10, sc_core::SCNS ); mtx.unlock(); // will get the lock back again immediately! } } void procB { // ask for the lock slightly later wait( 5, sc_core::SC_NS ); // continue as procA procA(); } In order to fix it, you'll at least need to check the queue before granting the lock (untested): while (s_queue.front() != sc_get_current_process_b() || in_use()) { sc_core::wait(m_free); } That said, you should not be using the implementation-defined sc_process_b class and use sc_process_handle and sc_get_current_process_handle() instead, to be more standards-compliant. Hope that helps, Philipp
  6. SystemC Evolution Day 2017 Workshop on the evolution of SystemC standards Wednesday, October 18, 2017 Munich, Germany Summary SystemC Evolution Day is a full-day technical workshop on the evolution of SystemC standards to advance the SystemC ecosystem. This is the second event after a successful first edition in May 2016. In several in-depth sessions, current and future standardization topics around SystemC will be discussed in order to accelerate their progress for Accellera and IEEE standard’s inclusion. SystemC Evolution Day is intended as a lean, user-centric, hands-on forum bringing together the experts from the SystemC user community and the Accellera Working Groups to advance SystemC standards in a full-day workshop. Date / Time: October 18, 2017 (day after DVCon Europe 2017) | 10:00am - 6:00pm Location: Technical University of Munich, City Campus | Arcisstraße 21, 80333 Munich, Germany Registration: Required, but free of charge. Register here > Submissions / Questions: Email systemc-evolution-day@lists.accellera.org Organization Team: Philipp A Hartmann, Intel; Oliver Bell, Intel; Martin Barnasconi, NXP; Matthias Bauer, Infineon; Thomas Kruse, Infineon Call for Contributions In the morning, a series of lightning talks are planned, covering concrete, but smaller standardization proposals as well as introducing new standardization needs around SystemC. For each of these short presentations, time for an interactive discussion will be included to gather feedback and support and for identifying the next steps towards standardization. In the afternoon, in-depth topic sessions are planned again, enabling a 90-minute detailed and interactive technical discussion on the most significant ongoing and future topics around SystemC standardization. If you are interested in championing a topic for an afternoon session or presenting your favorite extension to the SystemC community as part of a lightning talk, please send a title and abstract with up-to 100-words (lightning talks) or 400 words (topic session) by end of June to systemc-evolution-day@lists.accellera.org. You will receive a notification of acceptance by September at the latest. Important dates: June 30, 2017 – Proposal abstract submission deadline September 1, 2017 – Notification of acceptance September 15, 2017 – Announcement of the program
  7. Hi Veena, When you use simple_target_socket instances as described in the snippet above, you still call the normal b_transport on the initiator side. Can you show more context of the problem? Greetings from Duisburg, Philipp
  8. Hard to tell without details about what exact cast (i.e. between which types) is invalid. My guess would be the use of an array instead of the individual ports. /Philipp
  9. Third point: You're using a C-style array of ports, which won't work either. You should use an sc_vector (to name your ports) and use a loop to add the sensitivity (if you want to be sensitive to all ports in the vector): // change member sc_core::sc_vector< sc_core::sc_fifo_in<int> > in; // constructor scMWE::scMWE(sc_core::sc_module_name nm) : sc_core::sc_module(nm) , in("in", 4) // initialize vector { SC_METHOD(WritePseudo); for( auto& in_x : in ) // or a plain loop over the elements, if you don't have C++11 sensitive << in_x.data_written(); } /Philipp
  10. Oh, and I just realized, that your in port is an sc_fifo_in<int>, which doesn't have a default event (IIRC). You probably want to use the data_written event finder instead: sensitive << in.data_written(); Hope that helps as well, Philipp
  11. Hi Katang, your process function takes a parameter (int A). This is not supported for SC_METHOD et.al. Hope that helps, Philipp
  12. No. These process flavors are subject to the dont_initialize() setting. See IEEE 1666-2011, 4.2.1.1, step (b): Greetings from Duisburg, Philipp
  13. Because clocked threads are sensitive to an explicit clock. This clock does not have to be active during the start of the simulation. Greetings from Duisburg, Philipp
  14. Yes, creating a process with dont_initialize() set just keeps it off the runnable queue until it is triggered by its static sensitivity (or through an explicit reset() on a process handle of it). Without dont_initialize(), static process are marked as runnable during the initialization phase, while dynamic processes are made runnable immediately (i.e. in the current/next evaluation phase). Hope that helps, Philipp
  15. Hi Antonio, as I understand it, the SystemC AMS proof-of-concept implementation is now provided by COSEDA, see http://www.coseda-tech.com/systemc-ams-proof-of-concept Hope that helps, Philipp