I am working on large design using Modelsim.
I've read about the way modelsim simulation works. I am wondering, is there a way that when modelsim evaluates a signal in the simulation phase and it found it to be a red signal, i.e. 'X', to warn me about it?
Knowing that is impossible to list all the signals of the design and look at them one by one.
Also it's very hard to put assertion command for all signals.
You can use the when command to carry out a desired action when a condition is met. The find command can extract signals from the design hierarchy. Look at the Modelsim command reference documentation to see all of its options. The examine command is used to determine the length of arrays and scalar type signals. This example will not work on record types.
proc whenx {sig action} {
when -label $sig "$sig = [string repeat X [string length [examine $sig]]]" $action
}
foreach s [find signals -r /*] {whenx $s "echo \"$s is an X at \$now\""}
This example does not handle arrays which are only partially X's. While you can use array indices in the when expression to test individual bits, it isn't clear how to determine the bounds of an array programmatically in Modelsim tcl.
You can cancel all when conditions with nowhen *.
Related
I wanted to count instructions in simple recursive fibo function O(2^n). I succeded to do so with bubble sort and matrix multiplication, but in this case it seemed like instruction count ignored my fibo function. Here is the code used for instrumentation:
// Insert a call at the entry point of a routine to increment the call count
RTN_InsertCall(rtn, IPOINT_BEFORE, (AFUNPTR)docount, IARG_PTR, &(rc->_rtnCount), IARG_END);
// For each instruction of the routine
for (INS ins = RTN_InsHead(rtn); INS_Valid(ins); ins = INS_Next(ins))
{
// Insert a call to docount to increment the instruction counter for this rtn
INS_InsertCall(ins, IPOINT_BEFORE, (AFUNPTR)docount, IARG_PTR, &(rc->_icount), IARG_END);
}
I started to wonder what's the difference between this program and the previous ones and my first thought was: here I'm not using an array.
This is what I realised after some manual tests:
a = 5; // instruction ignored by PIN and
// pretty much everything not using array
fibo[1] = 1 // instruction counted properly
a = fibo[1] // instruction ignored by PIN
So it seems like only instructions counted are writes to the memory (that's what I assume). After I changed my fibo function to this it works:
long fibonacciNumber(int n, long *fiboNumbers)
{
if (n < 2) {
fiboNumbers[n] = n;
return n;
}
fiboNumbers[n] = fiboNumbers[n-1] + fiboNumbers[n-2];
return fibonacciNumber(n - 1, fiboNumbers) + fibonacciNumber(n - 2, fiboNumbers);
}
But I would like to count instructions also for programs that aren't written by me. Is there a way to count all type of instrunctions? Is there any particular reason why only this instructions are counted? Any help appreciated.
//Edit
I used disassembly option in Visual Studio to check how it looks and it still makes no sense for me. I can't find the reason why only assingment to array is interpreted by PIN as instruction.
instruction_comparison
This exceeded all my expectations, counted as 2 instructions:
even 2 instructions, not one
PIN, like other low-level profiling and analysis tools, measures individual instructions, low-level orders like "add these two registers" or "load a value from that memory address". The sequence of instructions which a program comprises are generally produced from a high-level language like C++ through a compiler. An individual line of C++ code might be transformed into exactly one instruction, but it's also common for a line to translate to several instructions or even to zero instructions; and the instructions for a line of code may be interleaved with those of other instructions.
Your compiler can output an assembly-language file for your source code, showing what instructions were produced for which lines of code. (For GCC and Clang, this is done with the -S flag.) Note that reading the assembly code output from a compiler is not the best way to learn assembly. Also, I would point you to godbolt.org, a very convenient tool for analyzing assembly output.
How do I retrieve outputs from objects in an array as described in the background?
I have a function in R that returns multiple variables. For eg. if my function is called function_ABC,then:
a<-function_ABC (input_var)
gives a such that a$var1, a$var2, and a$var3 exist.
I have multiple cases to run such that I have put then in an array:
input_var <- c(1, 2, ...15)
for storing the outputs, I declared var such that:
var <- c(v1, v2, v3, .... v15)
Then I run:
assign(v1[i],function(input_var(i)))
However, after that I am unable to access these variables as v1[1]$var1. I can access them as: v1$var1, or v3$var1, etc. But this means I need to write 15*3 commands to retrieve my output.
Is there an easier way to do this?
Push your whole input set into an array Arr[ ].
Open a multi threaded executor E of certain size N.
Using a for loop on the input array Arr[], submit your function calls as a Callable job to the executor E. While submitting each job, hold the reference to the FutureTask in another Array FTArr[ ].
When all the FutureTask jobs are executed, you may retrieve the output for each of them by running another for loop on FTArr[ ].
Note :
• make sure to add synchronized block in your func_ABC, where you are accessing shared resources to avoid deadlocks.
• Please refer to the below link, if you want to know more about the usage of a count-down-latch. A count-down-latch helps you to find out, when exactly, all the child threads have finished execution.
https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/countdownlatch-in-java/
In the article "How to set up Xcode to run OpenCL code, and how to verify the kernels before building" NeXTCoder referred to some code as the "Short Answer", i.e. https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/Performance/Conceptual/OpenCL_MacProgGuide/XCodeHelloWorld/XCodeHelloWorld.html.
In that code the author says "Wrap your kernel code into a kernel block:" without explaining what is a "kernel block". (The OpenCL Programmer Guide for Mac OS X by Apple makes no mention of kernel block.)
The host program calls "square_kernel" but the sample kernel is called "square" and the sample kernel block is labelled "kernelName" (in italics). Can you please tell me how to put the 3 pieces together:kernel, kernel block & host program to run in Xcode 5.1? I only have one kernel. Thanks.
It's not really jargon. It's closure-like entity.
OpenCL C 2.0 adds support for the clang block syntax. You use the ^ operator to declare a Block variable and to indicate the beginning of a Block literal. The body of the Block itself is contained within {}, as shown in the example (as usual with C, ; indicates the end of the statement).The Block is able to make use of variables from the same scope in which it was defined.
Example:
int multiplier = 7;
int (^myBlock)(int) = ^(int num) {
return num * multiplier;
};
printf(“%d\n”, myBlock(3));
// prints 21
Source:
https://www.khronos.org/registry/cl/sdk/2.1/docs/man/xhtml/blocks.html
The term "kernel block" only seems to be a jargon to refer to the "part of the code that is the kernel". Particularly, the kernel block in this case is simply the function that is declared to be a kernel, by adding kernel before its declaration. Or, even simpler, and from the way how the term is used on this website, I would say that "kernel block" is the same as "kernel".
The kernelName (in italics) is a placeholder. The code there shows the general pattern of how to define any kernel:
It is prefixed with kernel
It returns void
It has a name ... the kernelName, which may for example be square
It has several input- and output parameters
The reason why the kernel is called square, but invoked with square_kernel seems to be some magic that is done by XCode: It seems to read the .cl file, and creates a .h file that contains additional declarations that are derived from the .cl file (as can be seen in this question, where a kernel called rebound is defined, and GCL generated a rebound_kernel declaration).
I have tried
let _ = Unix.create_process "ls" [||] Unix.stdin Unix.stdout Unix.stderr
in utop, it will crash the whole thing.
If I write that into a .ml and compile and run, it will crash the terminal and my ubuntu will throw a system error.
But why?
The right way to call it is:
let pid = Unix.create_process "ls" [|"ls"|] Unix.stdin Unix.stdout Unix.stderr
The first element of the array must be the "command" name.
On some systems /bin/ls is a link to some bigger executable that will look at argv.(0) to know how to behave (c.f. Busybox); so you really need to provide that info.
(You see more often that with /usr/bin/vi which is now on many systems a sym-link to vim).
Unix.create_process actually calls fork and the does an execvpe, which itself calls the execv primitive (in the OCaml C implementation of the Unix module).
That function then calls cstringvect (a helper function in the C side of the module implementation), which translates the arg parameters into an array of C string, with last entry set to NULL. However, execve and the like expect by convention (see the execve(2) linux man page) the first entry of that array to be the name of the program:
argv is an array of argument strings passed to the new program. By
convention, the first of these strings should contain the filename
associated with the file being executed.
That first entry (or rather, the copy it receives) can actually be changed by the program receiving these args, and is displayed by ls, top, etc.
I am using custom LLVM pass where if I encounter a store to
where the compiler converts the value to a Constant; e.g. there is an explicit store:
X[gidx] = 10;
Then LLVM will generate this error:
aoc: ../../../Instructions.cpp:1056: void llvm::StoreInst::AssertOK(): Assertion `getOperand(0)->getType() == cast<PointerType>(getOperand(1)->getType())->getElementType() && "Ptr must be a pointer to Val type!"' failed.
The inheritance order goes as: Value<-User<-Constant, so this shouldn't be an issue, but it is. Using an a cast on the ConstantInt or ConstantFP has no effect on this error.
So I've tried this bloated solution:
Value *new_value;
if(isa<ConstantInt>(old_value) || isa<ConstantFP>(old_value)){
Instruction *allocInst = builder.CreateAlloca(old_value->getType());
builder.CreateStore(old_value, allocInst);
new_value = builder.CreateLoad(allocResultInst);
}
However this solution creates its own register errors when different type are involved, so I'd like to avoid it.
Does anyone know how to convert a Constant to a Value? It must be a simple issue that I'm not seeing. I'm developing on Ubuntu 12.04, LLVM 3, AMD gpu, OpenCL kernels.
Thanks ahead of time.
EDIT:
The original code that produces the first error listed is simply:
builder.CreateStore(old_value, store_addr);
EDIT2:
This old_value is declared as
Value *old_value = current_instruction->getOperand(0);
So I'm grabbing the value to be stored, in this case "10" from the first code line.
You didn't provide the code that caused this first assertion, but its wording is pretty clear: you are trying to create a store where the value operand and the pointer operand do not agree on their types. It would be useful for the question if you'd provide the code that generated that error.
Your second, so-called "bloated" solution, is the correct way to store old_value into the stack and then load it again. You write:
However this solution creates its own register errors when different type are involved
These "register errors" are the real issue you should be addressing.
In any case, the whole premise of "converting a constant to a value" is flawed - as you have correctly observed, all constants are values. There's no point storing a value into the stack with the sole purpose of loading it again, and indeed the standard LLVM pass "mem2reg" will completely remove such a sequence, replacing all uses of the load with the original value.