In System Verilog, I have:
wire [2:0][1:0] sig1;
wire [2:0][3:0] sig2;
I'm attempting to do:
assign sig1[2:0][1:0] = sig2[2:0][1:0];
NCVerilog tells me:
assign sig1[2:0][3:0] = sig2[2:0][3:0];
|
ncvlog: *E,MISEXX (acc_llcprdbctl.v,89|48): expecting an '=' or '<=' sign in an assignment [9.2(IEEE)].
Is there a way to assign multidimensional arrays?
Edit: Apparently, you can't assign arrays using more than one index. So the above example didn't fully represent what I wanted to do. I wanted to splice the second dimension and assign it to the first.
This could be accomplished if I rearranged the array:
wire [1:0][2:0] sig1;
wire [3:0][2:0] sig2;
assign sig1[1:0] = sig2[1:0];
But for any other more precise splicing, I'd have to use a nested for loop.
You can use a generate block as below.
generate
for(genvar i=0; i<3; i++)
assign sig1[i][1:0] = sig2[i][1:0];
endgenerate
From LRM :-
An single element of a packed or unpacked array can be selected using an indexed name.
bit[3:0] [7:0] j; // j is a packed array
byte k;
k = j[2]; // select a single 8-bit element from j
wire [2:0][1:0] sig1;
wire [2:0][3:0] sig2;
is actually equivalent to
wire [1:0] sig1 [2:0];
wire [3:0] sig2 [2:0];
hence, the tool is unable to do assign sig1[2:0][1:0] = sig2[2:0][1:0];
so You can also define it as
wire [2:0] sig1 [1:0];
wire [2:0] sig2 [3:0];
assign sig1[1:0] = sig2[1:0];
Related
I am trying to copy a 2 dimensional array to another 2 dimensional array. Since the name (srcAry) is the address of the first element of the source array, I have been able to print out all the values in the source array using pointer arithmetic in a for loop. I am using the number of rows times the number of columns as the condition to stop looping. If I try to assign the values to the new array using this method I get an error message (error: assignment to expression with array type). Is this possible to do this or am I limited to using two nested for loops with indexes?
...
void copyAry(double *pAry, int numRows, int numCols)
{
double newAry[numRows][numCols];
int end = numRows * numCols;
int ctr = 0;
for( ; ctr < end; ctr++)
// printf("*(pAry + %d) = %.1f\n", ctr, *(pAry + ctr)); //this works fine
{
*(newAry + ctr) = *(pAry + ctr); //this is where I receive error
}
return;
}
...
Thanks in advance.
I would assume that the type of newAry + ctr is not double* as your code assumes, but rather double*[numCols] i.e. a pointer to an array of numCols elements. Which also means that you would advance not one element at a time, but numCols.
Usually you would use memcpy for this kind of low level data copying. Barring that, you might start with double* pNewAry = &newAry[0][0] or some such in order to test the 2d array as a linear sequence of doubles.
I have got this code:
import std.stdio;
import std.string;
void main()
{
char [] str = "aaa".dup;
char [] *str_ptr;
writeln(str_ptr);
str_ptr = &str;
*(str_ptr[0].ptr) = 'f';
writeln(*str_ptr);
writeln(str_ptr[0][1]);
}
I thought that I am creating an array of pointers char [] *str_ptr so every single pointer will point to a single char. But it looks like str_ptr points to the start of the string str. I have to make a decision because if I am trying to give access to (for example) writeln(str_ptr[1]); I am getting a lot of information on console output. That means that I am linking to an element outside the boundary.
Could anybody explain if it's an array of pointers and if yes, how an array of pointers works in this case?
What you're trying to achieve is far more easily done: just index the char array itself. No need to go through explicit pointers.
import std.stdio;
import std.string;
void main()
{
char [] str = "aaa".dup;
str[0] = 'f';
writeln(str[0]); // str[x] points to individual char
writeln(str); // faa
}
An array in D already is a pointer on the inside - it consists of a pointer to its elements, and indexing it gets you to those individual elements. str[1] leads to the second char (remember, it starts at zero), exactly the same as *(str.ptr + 1). Indeed, the compiler generates that very code (though plus range bounds checking in D by default, so it aborts instead of giving you gibberish). The only note is that the array must access sequential elements in memory. This is T[] in D.
An array of pointers might be used if they all the pointers go to various places, that are not necessarily in sequence. Maybe you want the first pointer to go to the last element, and the second pointer to to the first element. Or perhaps they are all allocated elements, like pointers to objects. The correct syntax for this in D is T*[] - read from right to left, "an array of pointers to T".
A pointer to an array is pretty rare in D, it is T[]*, but you might use it when you need to update the length of some other array held by another function. For example
int[] arr;
int[]* ptr = &arr;
(*ptr) ~= 1;
assert(arr.length == 1);
If ptr wasn't a pointer, the arr length would not be updated:
int[] arr;
int[] ptr = arr;
ptr ~= 1;
assert(arr.length == 1); // NOPE! fails, arr is still empty
But pointers to arrays are about modifying the length of the array, or maybe pointing it to something entirely new and updating the original. It isn't necessary to share individual elements inside it.
I have a variable which is vector of vector, And in c++, I am easily able to define and declare it but in OpenCL Kernel, I am facing the issues. Here is an example of what I am trying to do.
std::vector<vector <double>> filter;
for (int m= 0;m<3;m++)
{
const auto& w = filters[m];
-------sum operation using w
}
Now Here, I can easily referencing the values of filters[m] in w, but I am not able to do this OpenCl kernel file. Here is what I have tried,but it is giving me wrong output.
In host code:-
filter_dev = cl::Buffer(context,CL_MEM_READ_ONLY|CL_MEM_USE_HOST_PTR,filter_size,(void*)&filters,&err);
filter_dev_buff = cl::Buffer(context,CL_MEM_READ_WRITE,filter_size,NULL,&err);
kernel.setArg(0, filter_dev);
kernel.setArg(1, filter_dev_buff);
In kernel code:
__kernel void forward_shrink(__global double* filters,__global double* weight)
{
int i = get_global_id[0]; // I have tried to use indiviadual values of i in filters j, just to check the output, but is not giving the same values as in serial c++ implementation
weight = &filters[i];
------ sum operations using weight
}
Can anyone help me? Where I am wrong or what can be the solution?
You are doing multiple things wrong with your vectors.
First of all (void*)&filters doesn't do what you want it to do. &filters doesn't return a pointer to the beginning of the actual data. For that you'll have to use filters.data().
Second you can't use an array of arrays in OpenCL (or vector of vectors even less). You'll have to flatten the array yourself to a 1D array before you pass it to a OpenCL kernel.
I am doing one project in which I define a data types like below
typedef QVector<double> QFilterDataMap1D;
typedef QMap<double, QFilterDataMap1D> QFilterDataMap2D;
Then there is one class with the name of mono_data in which i have define this variable
QFilterMap2D valid_filters;
mono_data Scan_data // Class
Now i am reading one variable from a .mat file and trying to save it in to above "valid_filters" QMap.
Qt Code: Switch view
for(int i=0;i<1;i++)
{
for(int j=0;j<1;j++)
{
Scan_Data.valid_filters[i][j]=valid_filters[i][j];
printf("\nValid_filters=%f",Scan_Data.valid_filters[i][j]);
}
}
The transferring is done successfully but then it gives run-time error
Windows has triggered a breakpoint in SpectralDataCollector.exe.
This may be due to a corruption of the heap, and indicates a bug in
SpectralDataCollector.exe or any of the DLLs it has loaded.
The output window may have more diagnostic information
Can anyone help in solving this problem. It will be of great help to me.
Thanks
Different issues here:
1. Using double as key type for a QMap
Using a QMap<double, Foo> is a very bad idea. the reason is that this is a container that let you access a Foo given a double. For instance:
map[0.45] = foo1;
map[15.74] = foo2;
This is problematic, because then, to retrieve the data contained in map[key], you have to test if key is either equal, smaller or greater than other keys in the maps. In your case, the key is a double, and testing if two doubles are equals is not a "safe" operation.
2. Using an int as key while you defined it was double
Here:
Scan_Data.valid_filters[i][j]=valid_filters[i][j];
i is an integer, and you said it should be a double.
3. Your loop only test for (i,j) = (0,0)
Are you aware that
for(int i=0;i<1;i++)
{
for(int j=0;j<1;j++)
{
Scan_Data.valid_filters[i][j]=valid_filters[i][j];
printf("\nValid_filters=%f",Scan_Data.valid_filters[i][j]);
}
}
is equivalent to:
Scan_Data.valid_filters[0][0]=valid_filters[0][0];
printf("\nValid_filters=%f",Scan_Data.valid_filters[0][0]);
?
4. Accessing a vector with operator[] is not safe
When you do:
Scan_Data.valid_filters[i][j]
You in fact do:
QFilterDataMap1D & v = Scan_Data.valid_filters[i]; // call QMap::operator[](double)
double d = v[j]; // call QVector::operator[](int)
The first one is safe, and create the entry if it doesn't exist. The second one is not safe, the jth element in you vector must already exist otherwise it would crash.
Solution
It seems you in fact want a 2D array of double (i.e., a matrix). To do this, use:
typedef QVector<double> QFilterDataMap1D;
typedef QVector<QFilterDataMap1D> QFilterDataMap2D;
Then, when you want to transfer one in another, simply use:
Scan_Data.valid_filters = valid_filters;
Or if you want to do it yourself:
Scan_Data.valid_filters.clear();
for(int i=0;i<n;i++)
{
Scan_Data.valid_filters << QFilterDataMap1D();
for(int j=0;j<m;j++)
{
Scan_Data.valid_filters[i] << valid_filters[i][j];
printf("\nValid_filters=%f",Scan_Data.valid_filters[i][j]);
}
}
If you want a 3D matrix, you would use:
typedef QVector<QFilterDataMap2D> QFilterDataMap3D;
hii,
m initialising a pointer to pointer like this:
// i = the number of items the pointer will point to....
m counting the number of conditions that are present in a sql query and den storing these
conditions in a structure (struct condition)..
so i = no of conditions in the query
// the last item i set it to NULL dats why (i+1) in the malloc statement..
// following is the declaration of COND...
struct condition **COND;
// initialisation of COND
SQL_INS->s.COND = malloc((i+1)*sizeof(struct condition *));
// after doing this m initialising the individual elements of the variable COND like this
so that each will point to a new structure object
SQL_INS->s.COND[j] = malloc(sizeof(struct condition));
i just want to know that is this the right way to do what m doing.. or is htere any better way...
Thanks.... :)
Please spell correctly and make your question a little more clear and you won't get answers like this...
SQL_INS->s.COND = malloc(((i+1)*sizeof(struct condition *))+(i*sizeof(struct condition)))
struct condition **ptr = SQL_INS->s.COND;
struct condition *cur = (struct condition *)(ptr+i+1);
int j = 0;
for( ; j<i; j++)
*(ptr+j) = cur++;
*(ptr+j) = NULL;
This keeps all the memory in one block instead of mallocing individual chunks for each struct condition. I thought it might make your code more readable dats why ii done it :)