Philipp A Hartmann

Sumit, yes, you can safely remove the storage class specifier "register" from sc_nbutils.h. It's only a hint for the compiler, and today's compilers usually now way better which variables to put in registers (and e.g. loop variables will probably end there anyhow). But why do you want to bother? Does your compiler complain about these? Please keep in mind, that this is still a reserved keyword in C/C++. You don't want to re-#define this token, do you? Greetings from Oldenburg, Philipp

If I understand you correctly, you want to have a preprocessor switch: #if defined(DEBUG) # define PRINT_MY_DEBUG( Some, Args ) \ print_debug_impl( (Some), (Args) ) #else # define PRINT_MY_DEBUG( Some, Args ) \ ((void)0) /* empty statement */ #endif // DEBUG void print_debug_impl( ... ); // real function implementation In the example above, the preprocessor symbol DEBUG is checked, whether or not to enable calls to the print_debug_impl function through the PRINT_MY_DEBUG function macro. You can define such symbols in the source, or via the command-line of your compiler (usually "-D<symbol>[=<value>]", i.e. here -DDEBUG). hth, Philipp

Indeed, you're right, Alan. I stand corrected. I apologize for the false allegations. /Philipp

Well, did you actually try to browse the provided website? ;-) http://www.embecosm.com/resources/software//Philipp

On the above webpage, I don't see any references to the original authors of this work. In the provided whitepaper the page, no author information is given either. On the other hand, the article is a verbatim copy of an older article from IP-SOC/2005: http://www.design-reuse.com/articles/12918/reusing-verilog-ip-cores-in-systemc-environment-by-v2sc.html (by Leila Mahmoudi Ayough, Ali Haj Abutalebi, Ali Iranmanesh and Moji Atarodi). I think, it would be polite to acknowledge the original authors explicitly. /Philipp

In case you don't want to download files from unknown sources, you can build the Doxygen documentation from the SystemC source tree directly: cd $SYSTEMC_HOME make -C objdir doxygen # assuming the configure-created Makefiles are located in the ./objdir/ subdirectory Afterwards point your browser to docs/sysc/doxygen/html/index.html # SystemC 2.3.0 docs/tlm/doxygen/html/index.html # TLM 2.0.2 The Doxygen configuration file templates can be found in docs/*/doxygen/ as well, in case you prefer different options. Greetings from Oldenburg, Philipp

Prasanna, yes, the time resolution is limited to femtoseconds in IEEE 1666-2011. It is even guaranteed that SC_FS = 0, which means you can't easily add an SC_AS to your own implementation without the risk of breaking models relying on the SC_[timeunit] enum values (provided that you even have access to the sc_time source code). Do you need these small time values for event notifications and/or delays? Then you're currently out of luck. In case you can control the overall simulation, then you can "slow down" the simulated time by a factor of 1000, interpreting seconds as microseconds. But this is of course dangerous, since some parts of the model may rely on the physical meaning of e.g. sc_time.to_seconds() values. If you need this small resolution for internal computations only, you can resort to your own time type with small conversion functions from/to sc_time, e.g. based on the to_seconds() function returning a plain double (and therefore relying on its physical meaning as well, see above). Greetings from Oldenburg, Philipp

Hans, Yes, you can (no pun intended). Here, you try to pass pin by value, which invokes a (deprecated, non-naming) copy-constructor, taking a non-const reference to dbusin. Since the simulation is already running (as it is said in the error message), this port creation fails. Add the missing & to pass pin by const-reference (as probably intended anyway). /Philipp

See IEEE 1666-2011, Section 4.2.12 (emphasis mine): In other words, even if an implementation chooses to use "real" OS threads to implement SC_[C]THREAD processes, the usual way to guarantee the above is to ensure mutual exclusion between the thread activations. Greetings from Oldenburg, Philipp

The function to set attributes for TDF MoC elaboration is called set_attributes() (plural form). You should be able to find such an error quite quickly by either adding simple debugging messages ("printf-debugging") or by using a proper debugger. Greetings from Oldenburg, Philipp

As said in my initial reply, you wouldn't be able to catch any dynamic sensitivity (next_trigger) with this approach. Secondly, how do you implement the suspension of the method "afterwards"? During the following update phase? This wouldn't catch any following immediate notifications of the "scheduled method" in the current evaluation phase. There are more fundamental problems to solve than "just" copying the static sensitivity. I would suggest to wrap the user function call in a helper function containing the interaction with your scheduler class, instead of using the process control statements. Alternatively, you can add a separate statement to mark a method as schedulable (but this would still not catch dynamic sensitivity in the user method): SC_METHOD( user_method ); schedulable(); sensitive << ...; // put _after_ schedulable() statement! // add to some base class, could eventually be implemented as a free function as well void schedulable() { // pseudo code static std::map<sc_process_handle, sc_event*> ev_map; // put in the scheduler sc_process_handle h = sc_get_current_process_handle(); sensitive << *(ev_map[h] = new sc_event); dont_initialize(); // create wrapper method SC_METHOD( sensitivity_method ); // mark "h" as runnable here // senstitivity in user code again } Greetings from Oldenburg, Philipp

Sam, That's not fully correct. In C++, you can't (directly) consider the return-type of a function (e.g: for overloading) to adapt the behaviour. You need to resort to intermediate values instead. In case of sc_fix(ed)/sc_fxnum, this intermediate value is sc_fxval, a variable-precision fixed-point value. Objects of this type always carry the required amount of bits during run-time and the assignment to another finite-precision type (sc_fxnum et.al.) handles the quantisation and overflow. AFAICS, you want to build a container class template for arithmetic types that provides element-wise operators. In order to deal with such intermediate values, there are several options depending on the level of generality you need to achieve and the constraints on the C++ language features, you can rely on. Disclaimer: The following snippets are fully untested. Simplest solution: Return a Vector<sc_fxval> instead (and provide an appropriate assignment operator/conversion constructor): Vector<sc_fxval,N> operator>> (unsigned m) const { Vector<sc_fxval,N> tmp; for (int i=0; i<N; i++) tmp.m_array[i] = m_array[i]>>m; return tmp; } Of course, this will limit the use of this shift operator in your Vector template to classes, where the result of the shift operator on the elements can be reasonably converted to sc_fxval. As a second option, you can use C++11's decltype and new function declaration syntax: auto operator>> (unsigned m) const -> Vector< decltype(T() >> m), N > { typedef decltype( T() >> m ) return_type; Vector<return_type,N> tmp; for (int i=0; i<N; i++) tmp.m_array[i] = m_array[i]>>m; return tmp; } This should work correctly for arbitrary shift operators and return an array of shift results. Since your compiler may not support these shiny new features of C++11, you can use a traits class with (partial) specialisation: template< typename T > struct vector_element_traits; // partial specialisation for sc_fixed template< int WordLength, int IntegerWordLength, sc_o_mode Overflow, sc_q_mode Quantization > struct vector_element_traits< sc_fixed<WordLength, IntegerWordLength, Overflow, Quantization > > { typedef sc_fxval right_shift_result; }; // ... Vector<typename vector_element_traits<T>::right_shift_result,N> operator>> (unsigned m) const { Vector<typename vector_element_traits<T>::right_shift_result,N> > tmp; for (int i=0; i<N; i++) tmp.m_array[i] = m_array[i]>>m; return tmp; } Last but not least, you can defer the evaluation of the element-wise operator by using expression templates to the implementation of the assignment operator of the vector. But this may be a bit too advanced for tonight. ;-) Greetings from Oldenburg, Philipp

Exactly. /Philipp

Minor addition: According to 1666-2011, Section 7.9.2.7, an explicit comparison with bool should work for bit-selects: if( bv[0] == true ) /* ... */ ; This doesn't look too bad, does it? HTH, Philipp

Sorry for the late reply, but let me try to shed some light on this. Internally, the sc_bitref(_r) classes (which are returned by the operator[] of sc_proxy<X> and are (an implementation-defined) part of the standard) assume sc_logic as value type for both sc_bv and sc_lv. This is the main reason, why using bit-selects in boolean contexts is not directly possible. Adding an implicit conversion from sc_bitref_r and/or sc_logic to bool is not reasonable (and will likely cause ambiguities in existing models). Still, I agree that this is inconvenient and unexpected especially in case of sc_bv bit-selects. The best solution would be to update the bit-select (and range-select) definitions to inherit the value type from their underlying objects. This would require some refactoring of these parts of the standard and careful analysis of resulting backwards-compatibility problems. But since the internal conversions work fine is most cases, I would suggest to add a boolean conversion based on the safe bool idiom. The implementation would be fairly straight-forward (untested, to be added to sc_logic and sc_bitref_r): class sc_logic // or sc_bitref_r { typedef sc_logic this_type; // or sc_bitref_r typedef bool (this_type::*boolean_type)() const; // ... public: operator boolean_type() const { return this->to_bool() ? &this_type::to_bool : 0; } }; Of course, we still need to check for ambiguities or other unwanted side-effects. But since the comparisons should already be explicitly defined, it Should Work™. Greetings from Oldenburg, Philipp

The link to the ebook is most probably a copyright violation (indicated by the embedded link inside). Please do not link to copyrighted material from this forum. @sonalidutta: can you please remove the link from your post? Thanks, Philipp

IIRC, there is no standardized API to extract the (static) sensitivity of a process. On the other hand, since both SC_THREAD and SC_METHOD processes may use dynamic sensitivity in their process bodies, I'm not sure what problem this would actually solve (except for documentation purposes). What do you want to achieve? Greetings from Oldenburg, Philipp

Brian, you ran into a (known) issue/corner-case regarding the new delta-cycle/sc_pause/sc_start semantics in IEEE 1666-2011. Regarding (1), see IEEE 1666-2011, Section 4.5.7: Regarding (2), a warning is required by IEEE 1666-2011 according to Section 4.3.4.2 (IEEE 1666-2005, i.e. SystemC 2.2.0 didn't have this functionality): In your case, the set of runnable processes is empty, but the set of update requests is not (due to the clk.write(1)). The generation of the warning due to an empty evaluation phase is somewhat beyond the spec here, since sc_pending_activity_at_current_time correctly returns true but no "real activity" is performed (except for processing the update phase). On the other hand, the value of sc_delta_count value is defined as: Therefore, it is reasonable to suppress the warning in this case. This is a minor issue in SystemC 2.3.0 and will be fixed in subsequent versions of the ASI proof-of-concept simulator. Until that, you can manually suppress the warning in your model by something like this: // helper macro for version checks #define SC_MAKE_VERSION( x, y, z ) \ (((x)*10000) + ((y)*100) + (z)) #if SC_MAKE_VERSION(SC_VERSION_MAJOR,SC_VERSION_MINOR,SC_VERSION_PATCH) <= SC_MAKE_VERSION(2,3,0) sc_core::sc_report_handler::set_actions( sc_core::SC_ID_NO_SC_START_ACTIVITY_, sc_core::SC_DO_NOTHING ); #endif Greetings from Oldenburg, Philipp

Just a quick addition: In case the FIFOs do not receive their values symmetrically, you should wait for a data_written_event on any of the incoming FIFOs, in case of any FIFO being empty (i.e. after the loop). This can be done by using an or-expression on the ports: wait (in_port_1009->data_written_event() | in_port_10098->data_written_event()); // | instead of & If you want to avoid some unnecessary wakeups, you can optimize this by using an explicit sc_event_and_list (here, an and is needed again): sc_event_and_list written_events; // requires 2.3.0 if( !in_port_1009->num_available() ) written_events &= in_port_1009->data_written_event(); if( !in_port_10098->num_available() ) written_events &= in_port_10098->data_written_event(); wait( written_events ); Greetings from Oldenburg, Philipp

It's a bit hard to tell, what the exact problem is, because you don't show the linker command issued from the Makefile. I would assume that the linking order between tlmSupport.a and SystemC (-lsystemc) is wrong and the SystemC dependency in tlmSupport.a can not be resolved correctly. Library symbols are resolved from right-to-left. Make sure to list tlmSupport.a before -lsystemc in the linker command-line. Since the problems seem to originate from the vendor-specific build system, please contact Imperas for support requests regarding OVP. Greetings from Oldenburg, Philipp

Usually it is better to start a new topic in this forum, when there is a new question. Secondly, you should always provide the detailed error message given by the compiler. It is not entirely clear to me, what you are trying to achieve, because you do not show the all relevant parts of the code. Irrespectively of any tracing, you always need to connect the ports through appropriate channels (TDF or SystemC signals in your case). Last, but not least, a wild guess regarding the compiler error: In case you've copied the code directly to the browser and depending on your compiler version, you need to insert a space between the two closing template brackets: sc_core::sc_signal<sc_dt::sc_lv<8> > out; // space needed here ^ Hope that helps, Philipp

SystemC 2.3 has been successfully tested on Ubuntu 12.04LTS (32/64 bit), which has GCC 4.6.3 and binutils 2.22 as default toolchain. Therefore, I don't think that there is a fundamental incompatibility between these tool versions. "some if/else expressions cannot be executed correctly" doesn't sound like a linker problem either. You can try, if the problem is reproducable in the SystemC regressions package, that can be downloaded from accellera.org. /Philipp

I never had problems with binutils 2.22 (I currently use binutils-2.23 on my Debian workstation). But I usually don't use ld explicitly and let the compiler handle the linking as well instead. In general, more important than using some particular linker version is to use the same version for building/linking the SystemC shared library as for the final linking of the simulation executable. What "issues" do you see? /Philipp

In general, a target socket needs to provide an implementation of the tlm_fw_transport_if<...> interface functions. An object implementing this interface needs to be bound to the socket during elaboration. For a more detailed answer, you need to provide more information. Is it a convenience socket? Is it your own socket? /Philipp NB: Worth reading: How To Ask Questions The Smart Way

The sc_logic constructor taking a char is marked as explicit. Therefore, you can't pass a char to functions expecting an sc_logic (e.g. initialize). You can either explicitly create (pun intended) an sc_logic from a char, or use the predefined sc_logic constants for assignments and parameter passing: sc_logic a; a = sc_logic('1'); eoc.initialize( SC_LOGIC_0 ); // SC_LOGIC_1, SC_LOGIC_X, SC_LOGIC_Z Greetings from Oldenburg, Philipp