Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About dilawar

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

399 profile views
  1. Thank you for this. Are there any list of guidelines you would suggest for improving simulation performance?
  2. Thanks. This is informative hint. cheers, Dilawar
  3. Hi, I am dynamically populating a network of SC_MODULES inside a global modele `net`. As soon as I create a module `x`, I bind all ports to x (say `a` and `b`) to `sc_signal` x.a and x.b in `net`. When I simulate, all SC_MODULEs run independently and I can see values of `sc_signal`s changing when port value changes. So far so good! This has the advantage and end-user does not have to bind all the ports (many of them are really not essential). Now I wish to connect port `a` and `b` of module `x` to port of `m` and `n` of module `y`. Any new binding will raise an error since I am allo
  4. Thank you maehne. I'll use the `sc_port` solution. It clearly marks my intention in declaration. cheers, Dilawar
  5. https://www.doulos.com/knowhow/systemc/new_standard suggests to do the following. sc_port<i_f, 1, SC_ZERO_OR_MORE_BOUND> opt_port; I am trying to replace some of my `sc_out` and `sc_in` with optional ports. I would like to replace them with `sc_out_opt` and `sc_in_opt` class in headers of my modules. What is the best way to derive these classes such that my code-base works with minimal changes to code? 1. Should I derive them from `sc_port<i_f, 1, SC_ZERO_OR_MORE_BOUND>` or `sc_in` and `sc_out` classes? 2. Can I force a port policy on `sc_in` and `sc_out` in m
  • Create New...