Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


sumit_tuwien last won the day on November 11 2013

sumit_tuwien had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Hamburg, Germany

Recent Profile Visitors

1,269 profile views

sumit_tuwien's Achievements

Advanced Member

Advanced Member (2/2)



  1. Thanks @Bas Arts , Thanks for checking. Seems either the compiler or the system has some issues. Regards, Sumit
  2. Hi @David Black, Following is the reduced version of the class: # ifndef BLAH_H_ # define BLAH_H_ class Blah final : sc_core::sc_module { private : double ThisOneWillAlsoNotLetWrite { 0.0 } ; public : sc_core::sc_signal < double > IWillNotLetYouWrite { "IWillNotLetYouWrite" } ; SC_HAS_PROCESS (Blah) ; explicit Blah(const sc_core::sc_module_name& ModuleName_) : sc_core::sc_module { ModuleName_ } {} ~Blah() final = default ; Blah& operator=(const Blah& other) = delete ; Blah(const Blah& other) = delete ; Blah operator=(Blah&& other) = delete ; Blah(Blah&& other) = delete ; void LetsWrite() { IWillNotLetYouWrite.write(1.0); } void ThisOneFailsToo() { ThisOneWillAlsoNotLetWrite = 1.0 ; } }; # endif ~ # Yes, -Wall -Wextra was turned ON. --std=c++14. # SystemC version : 2.3.3 # Compiler gcc-9.3.0 Regards, Sumit
  3. Possibly not. It even cannot write a simple double public member variable.
  4. Hello All, I have a module, which have a public member function which when called will write some values in a signal declared within the module. I can write into the signal from within the module. But if I try to access member function from outside the module instance, I get a crash. When I am trying to debug it, I find the following message: Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. t0x00000000080869c6 in sc_core::sc_signal_t<double, (sc_core::sc_writer_policy)0>::write (this=0xe8, value_=@0x7ffffea1ff00: 1) at /blah/systemc-2.3.3/include/sysc/communication/sc_signal.h:292 292 bool value_changed = !( m_new_val == value_ ); I am using gcc-9.3.0. Any help will be appreciated. Regards, Sumit
  5. Hello, Is gcc 9.3.0 a version for which SystemC library has been tested? Regards, Sumit
  6. I guess SC_USE_PTHREADS needs to be defined. Regards, Sumit
  7. Hi @AmeyaVS I am not building it, rather including these in my code base. Do you have any idea how to do in this case ? Regards, Sumit
  8. Hello! If I import the SystemC library into my codebase instead of compiling it separately, then, is there any compiler define or switch I can turn on to use pthreads ? Regards, Sumit
  9. Your simulation was stuck because it was not proceeding with time ...
  10. valgrind can be used as a profiler here. the tool is callgrind. kcachegrind comes with kde is a nice viewer.
  11. Hello, Please use -fdelayed-template-parsing to bypass this bug for the time being. Regards, Sumit
  12. Hello Philipp, Would it be possible to bypass the bug by explicitly deleting the destructor [public : ~mclass() = delete;] if the the chosen c++ standard is at or above c++11 ? It started hurting now. Regards, Sumit
  13. Hello All, Using get_chil d_objects() I can traverse through hierarchy and can find any ports & instances But I cannot find how these ports are connected. All what I want to do is to create a database which I can use for visualization by post processing. Is there any way to do this ? Regards, Sumit
  14. Hello Eyck, This is an amazing pointer. I see I have created a lot of confusions by vaguely putting some code and not mentioning the intent. I will never construct this object. All I am interested is accessing const uint8_t duh { 5 } ; const uint16_t notEgal { Moeglich::Egal(duh) } ; Here is what is important for me: Sometimes, I need partial template specialization of functions which is not allowed which can be enabled if I put this function inside a template class. Your link, very clearly lays down the rule. My expectation from the compiler was wrong and my use-case cannot be understood in a special way by the compiler. Meanwhile, I also asked help from stackoverflow.com in here (I generally do not do that, because they are champions in downvoting questions). You can see how many confusing and different answers from people. Please note:: Since I always explicitly mention all 6 special member functions, it was fine. This was accidentally found when in one place I missed 4 of them and started wondering. Glad that I did that mistake, which enabled me to learn something and correct some mistakes in my understanding. Thanks for the great help. Regards, Sumit
  • Create New...