I am combining two designs into a single chip design. The RTL code is written in SystemVerilog for synthesis. Unfortunately, the two designs contain a number of modules with identical names but slightly different logic.
Is there a namespace or library capability in SystemVerilog that would allow me to specify different modules with the same name? In other words is there a lib1::module1, lib2::module1 syntax I could use to specify which module I want? How is this sort of module namespace pollution best handled?
Thanks
Look into config and library. See IEEE Std 1800-2017 § 33. Configuring the contents of a design
library will map this files to target libraries based on file paths (IEEE Std 1800-2017 § 33.3. Libraries)
config will map which library to use for paralytic module (global, instances, subscope) (IEEE Std 1800-2017 § 33.4. Configurations)
Examples are provided in the section 33.8.
Note: some simulators want -libmap <configfile> in the command line. Refer to your simulators manual.
Unfortunately, neither verilog nor system verilog provide a comprehensive solution for the namespaces problem for design element (which include modules). V2K libraries and config statements (yes,they were introduced in verilog v2k) can partially help you solving this issue for modules only, and only if you plan for this in advance and use correct methodology to implement it. Not many people try to use v2k libs to solve it.
There are other parts of this as well, which you might discover. It include other design elements, macro names, file names, package names, ... System verilog makes it even worse with introducing of the global scopes.
So, depending on the complexity of your design you might be able to fix it with v2k libs. But in general, the solution always lies in the methodology and having those names uniquified upfront. Some companies even try to use on-fly uniquification by automatically rewriting verilog code in order to make those names unique.
You might also be able to solve some of the issues like that using compilation units, as defined in the SV standard and which are implemented at least by major tool vendors.
Related
Excerpt From: Robert C. Martin. “Clean Architecture: A Craftsman's Guide to Software Structure and Design (Robert C. Martin Series).”
“Now, what do we mean by the word “module”? The simplest definition is just a source file. Most of the time that definition works fine. Some languages and development environments, though, don’t use source files to contain their code. In those cases a module is just a cohesive set of functions and data structures.”
I got confused about "source" and "code" here. What does him meaning when he wrote "don’t use source files to contain their code"?
Thanks your explains.
"code" can be any statement or expression. "Source code" and "code" can be used interchangeably.
A file system file (ie. helloworld.c) can contain any number of statements. However, some development environments do not use files to store their code. Conceptually it could be just on the web and stored in a database, or the code could be in-memory only, and so not in a file.
In this particular passage, Mr. Martin (also known as Uncle Bob) is trying to illustrate that a module can mean different things depending upon the language or development environment. It is better to concentrate on the last line you quoted: a module is just a cohesive set of functions and data structures. as this is a sufficient definition without getting confused about the storage location of the code.
I am working on a free-software project which involves high performance computing and the MPI library.
In my code, I need to know the size of the MPI_Offset type, which is defined in mpi.h.
Normally such projects would be build using autotools and this problem would be easily solved. But for my sins, I am working with a CMake build and I can't find any way to perform this simple task. But there must be a way to do - it is commonly done on autotools projects, so I assume it is also possible in CMake.
When I use:
check_type_size("MPI_Offset" SIZEOF_MPI_OFFSET)
It fails, because mpi.h is not included in the generated C code.
Is there a way to tell check_type_size() to include mpi.h?
This is done via CMAKE_EXTRA_INCLUDE_FILES:
INCLUDE (CheckTypeSize)
find_package(MPI)
include_directories(SYSTEM ${MPI_INCLUDE_PATH})
SET(CMAKE_EXTRA_INCLUDE_FILES "mpi.h")
check_type_size("MPI_Offset" SIZEOF_MPI_OFFSET)
SET(CMAKE_EXTRA_INCLUDE_FILES)
It may be more common to write platform checks with autotools, so here is some more information on how to write platform checks with CMake.
On a personal note, while CMake is certainly not the most pleasant exercise, for me autotools is reserved for the capital sins. It is really hard to me to defend CMake, but in this instance, it is even documented. Naturally, setting a separate "variable" that you even have to reset after the fact, instead of just passing it as a parameter, is clearly conforming to the surprising "design principles" of CMake.
Here is what I'm looking for:
I'd like to separate pieces of functionality into modules or components of some sort to limit visibility of other classes to prevent that each class has access to every other class which over time results in spaghetti code.
In Java & Eclipse, for example, I would use packages and put each package into a separate project with a clearly defined dependency structure.
Things I have considered:
Using separate folders for source files and using Groups in Xcode:
Pros: simple to do, almost no Xcode configuration needed
Cons: no compile-time separation of functionality, i.e. access to everything is only one #import statement away
Using Frameworks:
Pros: Framework code cannot access access classes outside of framework. This enforces encapsulation and keeps things separate
Cons: Code management is cumbersome if you work on multiple Frameworks at the same time. Each Framework is a separate Xcode project with a separate window
Using Plugins:
Pros: Similar to Frameworks, Plugin code can't access code of other plugins. Clean separation at compile-time. Plugin source can be part of the same Xcode project.
Cons: Not sure. This may be the way to go...
Based on your experience, what would you choose to keep things separate while being able to edit all sources in the same project?
Edit:
I'm targeting Mac OS X
I'm really looking for a solution to enforce separation at compile time
By plugins I mean Cocoa bundles (http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/LoadingCode/Concepts/Plugins.html)
I have worked on some good-sized Mac projects (>2M SLOC in my last one in 90 xcodeproj files) and here are my thoughts on managing them:
Avoid dynamic loads like Frameworks, Bundles, or dylibs unless you are actually sharing the binaries between groups. These tend to create more complexity than they solve in my experience. Plus they don't port easily to iOS, which means maintaining multiple approaches. Worst, having lots of dynamic libraries increases the likelihood of including the same symbols twice, leading to all kinds of crazy bugs. This happens when you directly include some "helper" class directly in more than one library. If it includes a global variable, the bugs are awesome as different threads use different instances of the global.
Static libraries are the best choice in many if not most cases. They resolve everything at build time, allowing code stripping in your C/C++ and other optimizations not possible in dynamic libraries. They get rid of "hey, it loads on my system but not the customer's" (when you use the wrong value for the framework path). No need to deal with slides when computing line numbers from crash stacks. They catch duplicate symbols at build time, saving many hours of debugging pain.
Separate major components into separate xcodeproj. Really think about what "major" means here, though. My 90-project product was way too many. Just doing dependency checking can become a very non-trivial exercise. (Xcode 4 can improve this, but I left the project before we ever were able to get Xcode 4 to reliably build it, so I don't know how well it did in the end.)
Separate public from private headers. You can do this with static libs just as well as you can with Frameworks. Put the public headers in a different directory. I recommend each component have its own public include directory for this purpose.
Do not copy headers. Include them directly from the public include directory for the component. Copying headers into a shared tree seems like a great idea until you do it. Then you find that you're editing the copy rather than the real one, or you're editing the real one, but not actually copying it. In any case, it makes development a headache.
Use xcconfig files, not the build pane. The build pane will drive you crazy in these kinds of big projects. Mine tend to have lines like this:
common="../../common"
foo="$(common)/foo"
HEADER_SEARCH_PATHS = $(inherited) $(foo)/include
Within your public header path, include your own bundle name. In the example above, the path to the main header would be common/foo/include/foo/foo.h. The extra level seems a pain, but it's a real win when you import. You then always import like this: #import <foo/foo.h>. Keeps everything very clean. Don't use double-quotes to import public headers. Only use double-quotes to import private headers in your own component.
I haven't decided the best way for Xcode 4, but in Xcode 3, you should always link your own static libraries by adding the project as a subproject and dragging the ".a" target into your link step. Doing it this way ensures that you'll link the one built for the current platform and configuration. My really huge projects haven't been able to convert to Xcode 4 yet, so I don't have a strong opinion yet on the best way there.
Avoid searching for custom libraries (the -L and -l flags at the link step). If you build the library as part of the project, then use the advice above. If you pre-build it, then add the full path in LD_FLAGS. Searching for libraries includes some surprising algorithms and makes the whole thing hard to understand. Never drop a pre-built library into your link step. If you drop a pre-built libssl.a into your link step, it actually adds a -L parameter for the path and then adds -lssl. Under default search rules, even though you show libssl.a in your build pane, you'll actually link to the system libssl.so. Deleting the library will remove the -l but not the -L so you can wind up with bizarre search paths. (I hate the build pane.) Do it this way instead in xcconfig:
LD_FLAGS = "$(openssl)/lib/libssl.a"
If you have stable code that is shared between several projects, and while developing those projects you're never going to mess with this code (and don't want the source code available), then a Framework can be a reasonable approach. If you need plugins to avoid loading large amounts of unnecessary code (and you really won't load that code in most cases), then bundles may be reasonable. But in the majority of cases for application developers, one large executable linked together from static libraries is the best approach IMO. Shared libraries and frameworks only make sense if they're actually shared at runtime.
My suggestion would be:
Use Frameworks. They're the most easily reusable build artifact of the options you list, and the way you describe the structure of what you are trying to achieve sounds very much like creating a set of Frameworks.
Use a separate project for each Framework. You'll never be able to get the compiler to enforce the kind of access restrictions you want if everything is dumped into a single project. And if you can't get the compiler to enforce it, then good luck getting your developers to do so.
Upgrade to XCode4 (if you haven't already). This will allow you to work on multiple projects in a single window (pretty much like how Eclipse does it), without intermingling the projects. This pretty much eliminates the cons you listed under the Frameworks option.
And if you are targeting iOS, I very strongly recommend that you build real frameworks as opposed to the fake ones that you get by using the bundle-hack method, if you aren't building real frameworks already.
I've managed to keep my sanity working on my project which has grown over the past months to fairly large (number of classes) by forcing myself to practice Model-View-Control (MVC) diligently, plus a healthy amount of comments, and the indispensable source control (subversion, then git).
In general, I observe the following:
"Model" Classes that serialize data (doesn't matter from where, and including app's 'state') in an Objective-C 1 class subclassed from NSObject or custom "model" classes that inherits from NSObject. I chose Objective-C 1.0 more for compatibility as it's the lowest common denominator and I didn't want to be stuck in the future writing "model" classes from scratch because of dependency of Objective-C 2.0 features.
View Classes are in XIB with the XIB version set to support the oldest toolchain I need to support (so I can use a previous version Xode 3 in addition to Xcode 4). I tend to start with Apple provided Cocoa Touch API and frameworks to benefit from any optimization/enhancement Apple may introduce as these APIs evolve.
Controller Classes contain usual code that manages display/animation of views (programmatically as well as from XIBs) and data serialization of data from "model" classes.
If I find myself reusing a class a few times, I'd explore refactoring the code and optimizing (measured using Instruments) into what I call "utility" classes, or as protocols.
Hope this helps, and good luck.
This depends largely on your situation and your own specific preferences.
If you're coding "proper" object-oriented classes then you will have a class structure with methods and variables hidden from other classes where necessary. Unless your project is huge and built of hundreds of different distinguishable modules then its probably sufficient to just group classes and resources into folders/groups in XCode and work with it that way.
If you've really got a huuge project with easily distinguishable modules then by all means create a framework. I would suggest though that this would only really be necessary where you are using the same code in different applications, in which case creating a framework/extra project would be a good way to effectively copy code between projects. In practically all other cases it would probably just be overkill and much more complicated than needed.
Your last idea seems to be a mix of the first two. Plugins (as I understand you are describing - tell me if I'm wrong) are just separated classes in the same project? This is probably the best way, and should be done (to an extent) in any case. If you are creating functionality to draw graphs (for example) you should section off a new folder/group and start your classes and functionality within that, only including those classes into your main application where necessary.
Let me put it this way. There's no reason to go over the top... but, even if just for your own sanity - or the maintainability of your code - you should always endeavour to group everything up into descriptive groups/folders.
Suppose I am working on exposing some of my server-side classes to a GWT application, but certain parts could be done much better using GWT-specific components (like JSNI, for instance).
What are some techniques for doing so without being too hacky?
For instance, I am aware of using a subpackage and using the <super-source/> tag, but this requires the package names to be different, which causes eclipse to complain. The general solution in the community is to then tell eclipse to use that as a source folder, but then eclipse complains about there being two classes with the same name.
Ideally, there would just be a way to keep everything in a single source tree, and actually have different classes which apply the alternate implementations. This would feel like a more OO approach.
I would like to add a suffix to a class like _gwt which accomplishes this automatically, and I know I could write a script to do this kind of transformation, but that is a kludge for sure.
I've been considering using Google's GIN/GUICE libraries for my projects in general, and I think there might be some kind of a solution there, but I am not sure as I have not thoroughly investigated it.
What are some solutions you have tried in the past on GWT projects?
The easiest way to have split implementations is to use super-source code, but only enough to instantiate a uniquely-named instance or dispatch to a different method. Ideally, the super-source implementation is just a few lines long, and not so bad that you can't roll it by hand.
To work around the Eclipse / javac double-mapping and package name issues, the GWT source uses two top-level roots for user code: user/src and user/super. For example, the AutoBeans package has a split-implementation of JSON quoting and evaluation, one for the JVM and one for the browser.
There's really no non-kludgy way to implement super-source, as this is a feature way outside what you can specify in the language. There's nothing that lets you say "use this implementation in this environment" without the use of some external tool.
To support multiple platforms in C/C++, one would use the preprocessor to enable conditional compiles. E.g.,
#ifdef _WIN32
#include <windows.h>
#endif
How can you do this in Ada? Does Ada have a preprocessor?
The answer to your question is no, Ada does not have a pre-processor that is built into the language. That means each compiler may or may not have one and there is not "uniform" syntax for pre-processing and things like conditional compilation. This was intentional: it's considered "harmful" to the Ada ethos.
There are almost always ways around a lack of a preprocessor but often times the solution can be a little cumbersome. For example, you can declare the platform specific functions as 'separate' and then use build-tools to compile the correct one (either a project system, using pragma body replacement, or a very simple directory system... put all the windows files in /windows/ and all the linux files in /linux/ and include the appropriate directory for the platform).
All that being said, GNAT realized that sometimes you need a preprocessor and has created gnatprep. It should work regardless of the compiler (but you will need to insert it into your build process). Similarly, for simple things (like conditional compilation) you can probably just use the c pre-processor or even roll your own very simple one.
AdaCore provides the gnatprep preprocessor, which is specialized for Ada. They state that gnatprep "does not depend on any special GNAT features", so it sounds as though it should work with non-GNAT Ada compilers. Their User Guide also provides some conditional compilation advice.
I have been on a project where m4 was used as well, with the Ada spec and body files suffixed as ".m4s" and ".m4b", respectively.
My preference is really to avoid preprocessing altogether, and just use specialized bodies, setting up CM and the build process to manage them.
No but the CPP preprocessor or m4 can be called on any file on the command line or using a building tool like make or ant. I suggest calling your .ada file something else. I have done this for some time on java files. I call the java file .m4 and use a make rule to create the .java and then build it in the normal way.
I hope that helps.
Yes, it has.
If you are using GNAT compiler, you can use gnatprep for doing the preprocessing, or if you use GNAT Programming Studio you can configure your project file to define some conditional compilation switches like
#if SOMESWITCH then
-- Your code here is executed only if the switch SOMESWITCH is active in your build configuration
#end if;
In this case you can use gnatmake or gprbuild so you don't have to run gnatprep by hand.
That's very useful, for example, when you need to compile the same code for several different OS's using even different cross-compilers.
Some old Ada1983-era compilers have a package called a.app that utilized a #-prefixed subset of Ada (interpreted at build-time) as a preprocessing language for generating Ada (to be then translated to machine code at compile-time). Rational's Verdix Ada Development System (VADS) appears to be the progenitor of a.app among several Ada compilers. Sun Microsystems, for example, derived the Ada SPARCompiler from VADS and thus also had a.app. This is not unlike the use of PL/I as the preprocessor of PL/I, which IBM did.
Chapter 2 is some documentation of what a.app looks like: http://dlc.sun.com/pdf/802-3641/802-3641.pdf
No, it does not.
If you really want one, there are ways to get one (Use C's, use a stand-alone one, etc.) However I'd argue against it. It was a purposeful design decision to not have one. The whole idea of a preprocessor is very un-Ada.
Most of what C's preprocessor is used for can be accomplished in Ada in other more reliable ways. The only major exception is in making minor changes to a source file for cross-platform support. Given how much this gets abused in a typical cross-platform C program, I'm still happy there's no support for it in Ada. Very few C/C++ developers can control themselves enough to keep the changes "minor". The result may work, but is often nearly impossible for a human to read.
The typical Ada way to accomplish this would be to put the different code in different files and use your build system to somehow choose between them at compile time. Make is plenty powerful enough to help you do this.