Jump to content

Xesium

Members
  • Posts

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Xesium's Achievements

Member

Member (1/2)

0

Reputation

  1. Actually I found the answer to my question here: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/19227664/whats-the-c-idiom-equivalent-to-the-java-static-block There is a notion of static block that runs prior to all static variables' initializations. This helped solve the issue as I used the static block to set the time resolution.
  2. Very good point. If that's the case (which probably is), is there any way to ever setting time resolution? I knew the compiler would take space for global/static variables and will zero out that piece of memory. Didn't think constructors for those objects will be called prior to sc_main execution! Trying a piece of code and sounds like that's the case. So back to my question, how can I ever set the time resolution assuming that I can't change the current structure of the code?
  3. Hi, I have a complicated logger which uses sc_time().value() to print the value of the time. Currently everything is printed in ps resolution. My system at best runs in ms resolution. I want to change the time resolution using sc_set_time_resolution. So I put sc_set_time_resolution(1,sc_core::SC_MS); as the very first line in my sc_main(argc, argv). However the model fails in run-time due to "sc_time object(s) constructed". I'm not quite sure how on the very first line of sc_main() a sc_time object has been created. Any insight is very much appreciated. Also if my approach is incorrect in the first place, please let me know.
  4. Thanks. That's an interesting idea. I ended up solving it a different way though. I decided to go away from explicit binding though. Basically ended developing a thin infrastructure layer on top of SystemC and define my own version of ports/exports where I can change the bindings on the fly. Of course I'm losing all the sanity checks and sophistication that is done on port/export bidings. If you think that's an exceptionally bad path to take please let me know. At this moment it's working for me but then if I realize that it's extremely error prone then I'd rather do the right thing.
  5. Thanks a lot David. Having been developing SystemC models for years, I cherish your insight. I have attached a sample of design I'm trying to model. Tasks T_A communicate with tasks T_B over a communication channel (depicted as FIFOs). The connections between T_A and T_Bs are changing. Communication Manager (depicted) manages how the connections should be changing. I can pull in the communication channels (FIFOs with added features) into the implementation of T_A or T_Bs but it's not a good representative of the actual system. I was hoping to keep them as separate entities (keep all connections within Communication Manager and free the tasks from having the knowledge of whom they need to connect to) and connect/reconnect using ports/exports or TLM sockets. I can certainly do C++ modeling and use SystemC for handling events/timing as well. Any techniques/ideas you have is very much appreciated. Sample Model.pdf
  6. hmm, sounds like I can't delete my previous response. Please see my following response:
  7. Thanks a lot. I hope there was a way to avoid hacky solutions. I know SystemC is heavily used for modeling SoCs (where things are pretty much fixed by design) but this is a real network-related use case which I could happily use SystemC to model.
  8. Hi guys I'm working on a simulation system that the connection between components changes during the execution of the system. First time I'm facing this issue and not quite sure if I can change module to module connections during run-time and dynamically. Any thoughts how I can do this in SystemC? Thanks
×
×
  • Create New...