Eyck

You need to built the SystemC lib on ubuntu. With the introduction of small string optimization in C++11 gcc decided to move this into a different (inline) namespace (it is called DualABI). The use of of this can be configured at build time of gcc. Basically this is a decision of the distribution and may differ even if the version is the same. You may try to compile your SystemC code with '-D_GLIBCXX_USE_CXX11_ABI=0' or '-D_GLIBCXX_USE_CXX11_ABI=1'. See also https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Cxx11AbiCompatibility https://stackoverflow.com/questions/36159238/linking-problems-due-to-symb

Actually the usual bus protocols allow to send larger number of requests and the interconnect is allowed to answer them 'out of order' (e.g. AMBA AXI or CHI). But you are free to define you onw protocol and its own rules. The LRM states exactly how to do this. One example can be found at https://github.com/Arteris-IP/tlm2-interfaces which defines the extensions and phases for the AXI/ACE and the CHI protocol.

This part is wrong: for ( int i=0; i<N ; i++){ for ( int j=0; j<NB_elements_trans ; j++){ i_adder = new adder("i_adder"); i_adder->in[j](sig_data[i][j]); } i_adder->out(sig_add); } You create N x NB_elements_trans i_adder elements and on each of them you only connect 1 of 4 in ports. I guess you mean: for ( int i=0; i<N ; i++){ i_adder = new adder("i_adder"); for ( int j=0; j<NB_elements_trans ; j++){ i_adder->in[j](sig_data[i][j]); } i_adder->out(sig_add); } A few remarks: you create a memo

I don't know what you mean with being 'on readline'. With sc_fifo<int> my_fifo{8} you define a fifo with max. capacity of 8 elements. It is not a pipeline with a fixed depth....

The quantum keeper is used to hold the local time of a time domain in loosly-timed models. E.g. in https://git.minres.com/VP/HIFIVE1-VP/src/branch/master/platform/src/sc_main.cpp#L119 the global quantum is set (the amount of time a time domain is allowed to run ahead). In https://git.minres.com/DBT-RISE/DBT-RISE-RISCV/src/branch/develop/incl/sysc/core_complex.h#L112 the local time is updated (within each instruction) and if the quantum is exceeded, the control is returned to the SystemC kernel (line 114).

Actually you cannot use sc_core::sc_fifo for this as it takes ownership of the data which doesn't play well with the concepts of the generic payload. But there are event queues in tlm_utils for this (tlm_utils::peq_with_get and tlm_utils::peq_with_cb_and_phase).

Describing particular protocols means extending the base protocol (see also IEEE 1666-2011, section 14.2). There are several ways to do this: ignorable phases (IEEE1666-2011, section 14.2.1, 15.2.5): here you add intermediate timepoints inbetween the base protocol phase timepoint. This allows: 'An ignorable phase may be ignored by its recipient.' define new protocol traits (IEEE1666-2011, section 14.2.2): you define new, non-ignorable phases so the implementation are base-protocol-compliant. This way you can only connect base-protocol-compliant models together The easiest

In the constructor list you would provide a creator function. This is a functor(a function pointer, a std::function object, a Functor classinstance, a lambda function, ...) which accepts a char const* and a size_type and returns a constructed object. In your case it would look like (C++11): class example: public sc_core::sc_module { public: sc_core::sc_vector<sc_core::sc_fifo<unsigned>> fifos; example(sc_core::sc_module_name nm, unsigned outputs) : sc_core::sc_module(nm) , fifos("fifos", outputs, [](char const* name, unsigned i)->sc_core::sc_fifo<unsigned&g

create a signal in the B module and bind it to the sc_export. The you create a SC_METHOD being sensitive to the sc_port. In the method you just read the port value and write it to the signal.

Actually your code is a bit buggy and has some misconceptions. For your convenience I code up your example at https://www.edaplayground.com/x/CfVM Maybe you should read some books (e.g. @David Blacks 'SystemC from the ground up') or checkout some tutorials using a search engine of your choice.

Your do_sum() is sensistive to A_val_in and B_val_in which means wati() finishes as soon as A_val_in or B_val_in gets data. Then you read the data using blocking read. This means the function waits until data in the fifo is available anyways. Your loop could be simplified as void sum::do_sum() { while(true) { unsigned int Sint = A_val_in.read() + B_val_in.read(); S_val_out.write(Sint); sum_finished.notify(SC_ZERO_TIME); } } and you don't need a sensitivity list at all. This can be done also in a non-blocking way: void sum::do_sum() { unsigned int A_v

No, a bool does not provide events. More over of A is true for a longer time how often should the thread be activated? I guess what you need is a clock.

You also need to change the order of sc_start and trace file creation: sc_trace_file *tf=sc_create_vcd_trace_file("trace"); tf->set_time_unit(1,SC_NS); sc_trace(tf,A,"A"); sc_trace(tf,B,"B"); sc_trace(tf,O,"O"); sc_start(SC_ZERO_TIME); Afaik the kernel will not add traces once the simulation passed end of elaboration (which happens with the very first call of sc_start())

If you use #include with angle brackets the current directory is not part of the include search path. So either you use #include "andh2.h" or add the current directory to the list of include directories of the compiler invocation

A SC_METHOD being sensitive to a positive edge of a clock is not a latch rather a register. It is the same than in (System)Verilog or VHDL. Moreover a sc_signal is not a queue at all. Writes in the same delta cylce superseed earlier writes in the same delta cycle. A signal in SystemC is similar to a wire or reg in Verilog or a signal in VHDL. Maybe you should revisit your understanding of RTL description and its logics. There are many ways how to implement things. You may write a lot of different modules what brings a lot of overhead. Usually you implement a pipeline as a set of proc

Actually this is a Virtualizer specific question so you are better up contacting SNPS directly or try their SolvNet. But if you have missing symbols during link you miss to specify a library. How to solve this is a question to SNPS.

Well, if Stage1 should hold the value of 2 until Stage2 is able to process it then Stage2 need to tell Stage1 that is busy with the value before. In your example Stage2 read (consumed) already the value 2 so that Stage1 can provide the next value (3). This is what you see in the simulation: Stage2 tells Stage1 that it is busy processing the value of 2 so Stage 1 holds the next value (3) until Stage2 is ready. Actually the implementation and behavior is correct.

I'm not aware of any example so I will no be able to answer your question. But I do not see your problem. You would do it as it is done in hardware. Each stage is providing a ready signal indicating to the stage before that it can take inputs. And now the preceeding stage updates its outputs only if the ready signal of the next stage is active.

Due to the METHOD your derived clock switches in the second delta cycle. One way I can think of is 'gating' the primary clock as well: #include "systemc.h" SC_MODULE(ClockPropagater) { sc_in<bool> clk{"clk"}; sc_out<bool> p_clk1{"p_clk1"}, p_clk2{"p_clk2"}; // Clock gating can be potentially added. void Propagate() { p_clk1 = clk; p_clk2 = clk;} SC_CTOR(ClockPropagater) { SC_METHOD(Propagate); sensitive << clk; } }

Do you have an error message or stacktrace (gdb)? 'simulation [...] crashes suddenly' is very generic and can have manifold root causes... Where do you execute the code? You can only create sc_object based elements during elaboration. But if PortElement is a plain C++ class I have no idea why it fails...

I guess your problem stem from a particular implementation detail in SystemC: if you have an inheritance hierarchy you should declare all constructor parameters as ' my_module( sc_core::sc_module_name const& nm). For the leaf module can leave it as 'MyModule(sc_core::sc_module_name nm)'. In the second case a copy of the module name is created which manipulates the hierarchy stack of the kernel. I assume this way you srew up your design. It is save to always pass the sc_module_name by const reference in the constructors. This would makeup for a good rule in a modleing guideline

Well, sc_fifo is not TLM. For your example the basic question is: what is the protocol on fifo_out? Should it be clock-based? Valid-Ready signaling? So your queastion and example is too generic and broad. If you are looking for an example to translate from TLM2.0 to pin level of an Amba AHB protocol you may have a look here: https://git.minres.com/SystemC/SystemC-Components/src/branch/master/incl/tlm/ahb/bfm and https://git.minres.com/SystemC/SystemC-Components/src/branch/master/src/tlm_ahb_bfm_initiator.cpp as well as https://git.minres.com/SystemC/SystemC-Components/src/branch/mas

AFAIK the first version should properly instantitate. Maybe you mess up within the constructor ... Since this is not really source code it is hard to tell any further. Maybe you can provide a silghtly mor concrete example e.g. on https://www.edaplayground.com/

Basically yes but just add_attribute is not enough. From the top of my head: you need to declare in your sc_module: sc_core::sc_attribute<A*> attr{"attr", nullptr}; sc_core::sc_in<bool> pin{"pin"}; in the constructor of your sc_module you need to add the attribute to the sc_object/sc_port: pin.add_attribute(attr); via attr.value = new A(); you can assign a value. This way the attribute can be found e.g. via the SystemC object tree (sc_core::sc_get_top_level_objects() ). Alternatives depend of your goal. One option would be to use CCI, esp. cci_para

SCV does not contain an the respective overloads for scv_introspection and _scv_distribution. Therefore there is afaik no way to simply randomize a vector. As a workaround you might use the randomization for plain C-style arrays.