Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'array'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Accellera Systems Initiative
    • Information
    • Announcements
    • In the News
  • SystemC
    • SystemC Language
    • SystemC AMS (Analog/Mixed-Signal)
    • SystemC TLM (Transaction-level Modeling)
    • SystemC Verification (UVM-SystemC, SCV)
    • SystemC CCI (Configuration, Control & Inspection)
    • SystemC Datatypes
  • UVM (Universal Verification Methodology)
    • UVM 2017 - Methodology and BCL Forum
    • UVM SystemVerilog Discussions
    • UVM Simulator Specific Issues
    • UVM Commercial Announcements
    • UVM (Pre-IEEE) Methodology and BCL Forum
    • UVM 1.2 Public Review
  • Portable Stimulus
    • Portable Stimulus 1.0
    • Portable Stimulus Pre-Release Discussion
  • IP Security
    • IP Security Assurance Whitepaper Discussion
    • IP-XACT Discussion
  • IEEE 1735/IP Encryption
    • IEEE 1735/IP Encryption Discussion
  • Commercial Announcements
    • Announcements


  • SystemC
  • UVM
  • UCIS
  • IEEE 1735/IP Encryption


  • Community Calendar

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL












Found 6 results

  1. HI, What is the purpose of the element, ARRAYS present in component IPXACT definition. In the above image, the port has name: defining physical port name, direction: wire direction, vectors: msb and lsb of the port. What I don't understand is the purpose of arrays here. What it implies? Is it kind of multi dimensional port definition. If so, don't we already have indices, index defining them? Thanks in advance, Bhargav K
  2. I need to create a TLM module (that here we will call top_level) containing an array of TLM target modules (defined by class reg). As a consequence, the top_level module should implement the tlm_bw interface, and contain an array of initiator sockets, each bound to a target socket of the reg modules. Is it possible to implement this hierarchy by using the sc_vector construct? Here is a snapshot of the code that I am trying to implement, to give a clearer idea: Top level #include "reg.h" class top_level : public sc_module , public virtual tlm::tlm_bw_transport_if<> { private: sc_time time; sc_vector<reg*> register_file; tlm::tlm_generic_payload reg_trans; public: sc_vector <tlm::tlm_initiator_socket<>*> initiator_socket; ... }; Target module: class reg : public sc_module , public virtual tlm::tlm_fw_transport_if<> { public: tlm::tlm_target_socket<> target_socket; virtual void b_transport(tlm::tlm_generic_payload& trans, sc_time& t); reg(sc_module_name name_); ... }; When trying to compile, the compiler returns this error: error: ISO C++ forbids declaration of ‘sc_vector’ with no type error: expected ‘;’ before ‘<’ token referring to both the instances of sc_vector, as if neither my class nor the initiator_socket class were recognized as datatypes... Best regards, S.
  3. Hello, I've been trying to instantiate (if I'm not mistaken) an array of submodules that were created using sc_vector. So far, I've followed the recommendations for using custom creator functions, but I'm kind of lost at how to actually make it work. Especially with sc_bind, which keeps returning me errors. The module master houses an array of ports that will be connected to a corresponding number of slaves. Order of connection does not matter. I'm using MSVC++ 10. The code is as follows: class top : public sc_module { //Submodule declarations master master_i; sc_vector<slave> slave_i; public: // Constructor top( sc_module_name module_name , int k ) : sc_module( module_name ) , master_i("master"), slave_i("slave") { slave_i.init(N_SLAVE, sc_bind(&top::create_slave, this, sc_unnamed::_1, sc_unnamed::_2)("slave",k)); sc_assemble_vector(slave_i, &slave::target_port).bind(master_i.initiator_port); } The creator function, which is a member of the class top, is as follows: static slave* top::create_slave(const char* name, size_t idx) { slave* s = new slave(name,1); // Hardcoding not intended; it's just to get it to // compile return s; } slave class constructor prototype: slave( sc_module_name module_name , int k ); Errors that I have so far: 1>c:\systemc\systemc-2.3.1\src\sysc\packages\boost\bind.hpp(63): error C2825: 'F': must be a class or namespace when followed by '::' 1> c:\systemc\systemc-2.3.1\src\sysc\packages\boost\bind\bind_template.hpp(15) : see reference to class template instantiation 'sc_boost::_bi::result_traits<R,F>' being compiled 1> with 1> [ 1> R=sc_boost::_bi::unspecified, 1> F=slave *(__cdecl *)(const char *,size_t) 1> ] 1> c:\users\khairul\dropbox\cours\systemc\examples\source\11\master_slave\top.h(32) : see reference to class template instantiation 'sc_boost::_bi::bind_t<R,F,L>' being compiled 1> with 1> [ 1> R=sc_boost::_bi::unspecified, 1> F=slave *(__cdecl *)(const char *,size_t), 1> L=sc_boost::_bi::list3<sc_boost::_bi::value<top *>,sc_boost::arg<1>,sc_boost::arg<2>> 1> ] Any ideas? Thanks,
  4. Hi, So I have a submodule having an array of boolean input ports. Now in the top module, I define an sc_vector of the submodule type. Also, I define an array of sc_vector signals to be bound to. Questions: Can I use an array of sc_vectors? Any conventions on using them? eg: can I write sc_vector < sc_signal <bool> > operand_vec[max_operands]; If no, then is there any work around for this? Also, I now need to assemble and bind these ports: The code below doesn't seem to work. Both the stack_cnt_vec and operand_vec are initialized properly. for(int i=0;i<max_operands;i++){ operand_vec[i].init(10); } for(int i=0; i<10; i++) { sc_assemble_vector( stack_cnt_vec, &StackController::operands[i]).bind( operand_vec[i] ); } Thanks a lot for your time.
  5. Do fixed-size arrays not support .size()? Or, am I doing smthg wrong below? Running irun 13.1, I am told that .size() "is not a valid built in method name for this object". If they do not, is this b/c a. the expectation is that someone used a parameter/constant to specify the size of the array and that they can just use it everywhere else they might need it b. fixed sizes arrays were part of pre-SystemVerilog Verilog and as such missed this convenient feature. ? Just before publishing, I discovered section "20.7 Array querying functions" in the 1800-2012.pdf, SystemVerilog spec: $size() module top; int farray[10]; //fixed array initial begin //1 for (int jjj=0; jjj<10; jjj++) begin //works /*2*/ for (int jjj=0; jjj<farray.size(); jjj++) begin //doesn't work //3 for (int jjj=0; jjj<$size(farray); jjj++) begin //works farray[jjj] = $urandom_range(121,0); end $display("******************************"); for (int jjj=0; jjj<10; jjj++) begin $display("%0d: %0d",jjj,farray[jjj]); end end endmodule : top
  6. In SystemVerilog we can have dynamic unpacked arrays and they can be passed to a function/task. I was wondering if there is a way to pass dynamic packed arrays to a function/task. For example consider the following code: module test; logic [3:0] A; logic [7:0] B; task automatic double(ref [3:0] val); val = val * 2; $display("%b",val); endtask initial begin A = 3; double(A); B = 5; //double(; ** Error because of size mismatch end endmodule here the task can only have a 4-bit input argument so if B is passed an error occurs. I am interested to know if there is any way to pass packed arrays of different size to a task/function. In previous example if the arrays were unpacked I could use: task automatic double(ref val []); but I have no idea what I should use for packed arrays. In VHDL having variable size input arguments is very easy. For example the same code can be written like this: use std.textio.all; entity test is end entity; architecture arch of test is procedure double(val: bit_vector) is variable temp : bit_vector(val'left downto val'right); variable l : line; begin temp := val sll 1; write(l,temp); writeline(output,l); end procedure; begin process variable A : bit_vector(3 downto 0); variable B : bit_vector(7 downto 0); begin A := "0011"; double(A); B := "00001111"; double(; wait; end process; end architecture; I appreciate any idea on this. Thanks
  • Create New...