I think I just found a bug at the file sc_trace_file_base.cpp on version 2.3.2. It was recommended to me to report it here.The problem is at the function set_time_unit, line 193, where you can read that the parameters of the function are v and tu:
void
sc_trace_file_base::set_time_unit( double v, sc_time_unit tu )
As you can see, there are no restriction for the use of value v. On the code I was working at, the value was 0.5, and that is ok for SystemC 2.3.1a.
However, at 2.3.2, any value of v that it is not a multiple of 10 will make the function fail in an internal assertion because trace_unit_fs = v * unit_to_fs(tu):
trace_unit_fs = static_cast<unit_type>(v * unit_to_fs(tu));
Then, at the line 213, fs_unit_to_str is called:
ss << fs_unit_to_str(trace_unit_fs)
And in fs_unit_to_str:
it:std::string
sc_trace_file_base::fs_unit_to_str(sc_trace_file_base::unit_type tu)
{
switch (tu)
{
case UINT64_C(1): return "1 fs";
case UINT64_C(10): return "10 fs";
case UINT64_C(100): return "100 fs";
case UINT64_C(1000): return "1 ps";
case UINT64_C(10000): return "10 ps";
case UINT64_C(100000): return "100 ps";
case UINT64_C(1000000): return "1 ns";
case UINT64_C(10000000): return "10 ns";
case UINT64_C(100000000): return "100 ns";
case UINT64_C(1000000000): return "1 us";
case UINT64_C(10000000000): return "10 us";
case UINT64_C(100000000000): return "100 us";
case UINT64_C(1000000000000): return "1 ms";
case UINT64_C(10000000000000): return "10 ms";
case UINT64_C(100000000000000): return "100 ms";
case UINT64_C(1000000000000000): return "1 sec";
case UINT64_C(10000000000000000): return "10 sec";
case UINT64_C(100000000000000000): return "100 sec";
default: sc_assert(0); return "";
}
}
If the variable v is different of a multiple of 10, the function fs_unit_to_str will necessarily fail. For v = 0.5, it will always get to the default and sc_assert(0) will be activated.
This function should receive the value of unit_to_fs(tu) as a parameter, or change the way this block of code works altogether.
Could someone confirm if this is a bug indeed, and propose a fix for that?
Thank you very much.
