I am trying to see if Yosys fits my requirements or no.
What i want to do is to find an operation in Verilog code (e.g. temp = 16*val1 + 8*val2 ) and replace this with another op like ( temp = val1 << 4 + val2 << 3 ).
Which parts i need to learn & use from Yosys? if anyone knows the set of command to use, can he/she please let me know to boost my learning curve ?
Thanks.
For example consider the following verilog input (test.v):
module test(input [7:0] val1, val2, output [7:0] temp);
assign temp = 16*val1 + 8*val2;
endmodule
The command yosys -p 'prep; opt -full; show' test.v will produce the following circuit diagram:
And the output written to the console contains this:
3.1. Executing OPT_EXPR pass (perform const folding).
Replacing multiply-by-16 cell `$mul$test.v:2$1' in module `\test' with shift-by-4.
Replacing multiply-by-8 cell `$mul$test.v:2$2' in module `\test' with shift-by-3.
Replacing $shl cell `$mul$test.v:2$1' (B=3'100, SHR=-4) in module `test' with fixed wiring: { \val1 [3:0] 4'0000 }
Replacing $shl cell `$mul$test.v:2$2' (B=2'11, SHR=-3) in module `test' with fixed wiring: { \val2 [4:0] 3'000 }
The two lines reading Replacing multiply-by-* cell are the transformation you mentioned. The two lines after that replace the constant shift operations with wiring, using {val1[3:0], 4'b0000} and {val2[4:0], 3'b000} as inputs for the adder.
This is done in the opt_expr pass. See passes/opt/opt_expr.cc for its source code to see how it's done.
Related
I know yosys has limited tri-state support, but I'm looking for a possible workaround.
The following circuit:
module TBUF2
(
inout SALIDA1,
inout SALIDA2,
input OE,
output C);
assign SALIDA1=OE ? 1'b0 : 1'bZ;
assign SALIDA2=OE ? 1'b0 : 1'bZ;
wire e;
assign e=SALIDA1 & SALIDA2;
assign C=e;
endmodule
Is interpreted as:
TBUF2 parsed tree
Note that when OE is 0 C=SALIDA1 and SALIDA2.
During the opt pass, the opt_merge pass removes $2 mux and generates:
TBUF2 optimized
This breaks the circuit (when OE is 0 then C=SALIDA1). I realize this is because yosys/ABC doesn't really understand the consequences of the "1'z" input.
Is it possible to keep muxes that meet the following criteria?:
1) At least one input is 1'Z
2) Its output drives an inout pin
Here is the script to reproduce it:
read_verilog tbuf2.v
proc
show -format dot -prefix tbuf2_01
opt
show -format dot -prefix tbuf2_02
Convert the tristate buffer $mux cells to $tribuf cells by running the tribuf command after proc and before running any opt commands.
I've been testing yosys for some use cases.
Version: Yosys 0.7+200 (git sha1 155a80d, gcc-6.3 6.3.0 -fPIC -Os)
I wrote a simple block which converts gray code to binary:
module gray2bin (gray, bin);
parameter WDT = 3;
input [WDT-1:0] gray;
output [WDT-1:0] bin;
assign bin = {gray[WDT-1], bin[WDT-1:1]^gray[WDT-2:0]};
endmodule
This is an acceptable and valid code in verilog, and there is no loop in it.
It passes compilation and synthesis without any warnings in other tools.
But, when I run in yosys the next commands:
read_verilog gray2bin.v
scc
I get that a logic loop was found:
Found an SCC: $xor$gray2bin.v:11$1
Found 1 SCCs in module gray2bin.
Found 1 SCCs.
The next code, which is equivalent, pass the check:
module gray2bin2 (
gray,
bin
);
parameter WDT = 3;
input [WDT-1:0] gray;
output [WDT-1:0] bin;
assign bin[WDT-1] = gray[WDT-1];
genvar i;
generate
for (i = WDT-2; i>=0; i=i-1) begin : gen_serial_xor
assign bin[i] = bin[i+1]^gray[i];
end
endgenerate
endmodule
Am I missing a flag or synthesis option of some kind?
Using word-wide operators this circuit clearly has a loop (generated with yosys -p 'prep; show' gray2bin.v):
You have to synthesize the circuit to a gate-level representation to get a loop-free version (generated with yosys -p 'synth; splitnets -ports; show' gray2bin.v, the call to splitnets is just there for better visualization):
The answer given by CliffordVienna indeed gives a solution, but I also want to clarify that that it's not suitable to all purposes.
My analysis was done for the purpose of formal verification. Since I replaced the prep to synth to solve the falsely identified logic loops, my formal code got optimized. Wires which I've created that were driven only by the assume property pragma, were removed - this made many assertions redundant.
It's not correct to reduce any logic for the purpose of behavioral verification.
Therefore, if the purpose is to prepare a verification database, I suggest not to use the synth command, but to use a subset of commands the synth command executes.
You can find those commands under:
http://www.clifford.at/yosys/cmd_synth.html
In general, I've used all the commands specified in the above link that do not optimize logic:
hierarchy -check
proc
check
wreduce
alumacc
fsm
memory -nomap
memory_map
techmap
abc -fast
hierarchy -check
stat
check
And everything works as expected.
I have a couple of errors in my verilog code that pop up when I compile. I believe they are all related. But I can't figure out what the error is. Any help will be greatly appreciated.
The errors are: Two for the input
vlog_a: Error 31004 Syntax error near `input' found
blog_a: Error 31004 Syntax error near 'output' found
module threeBitComparator;
input A2,A1,A0;
input B2,B1,B0;
output E,GE; //E-Equal, GE-Greater than or Equal to
wire X1,X2,X3; //xnor gate
wire Y1,Y2,Y3,Y4,Y5,Y6; // and & or gates
xnor
G1a(X1,A2,B2),
G1b(X2,A1,B1),
G1c(X3,A0,B0);
and
G2a(Y1,A2,~B2),
G2b(Y2,A1,~B1),
G2c(Y3,A0,~B0),
G2d(Y4,X1,Y2),
G2e(Y5,X1,X2,Y3),
G2f(E,X1,X2,X3);
or
G3a(Y6,Y1,Y4,Y5),
G3b(GE,Y6,E);
endmodule
You declared your inputs and outputs but you haven't declared a port list. Your module header needs to look like below code to be IEEE 1364-1995 complaint
module threeBitComparator(A2,A1,A0,B2,B1,B0,E,GE); // <-- port list
input A2,A1,A0;
input B2,B1,B0;
output E,GE; //E-Equal, GE-Greater than or Equal to
Or you can use the ANSI style header introduce in IEEE Std 1364-2001. This style works on any modern Verilog simulator.
module threeBitComparator(
input A2,A1,A0,
input B2,B1,B0,
output E,GE ); //E-Equal, GE-Greater than or Equal to
I think you forgot to declare your input and output in the module port lists. Adding A2, A1..., etc to the port list will solve the compilation errors.
You can check the updated code here.
I want to save the output of a program to a variable.
I use the following approach ,but fail.
$ PIPE RUN TEST | DEFINE/JOB VALUE #SYS$PIPE
$ x = f$logical("VALUE")
I got an error:%DCL-W-MAXPARM, too many parameters - reenter command with fewer parameters
\WORLD\
reference :
How to assign the output of a program to a variable in a DCL com script on VMS?
The usual way to do this is to write the output to a file and read from the file and put that into a DCL symbol (or logical). Although not obvious, you can do this with the PIPE command was well:
$ pipe r 2words
hello world
$ pipe r 2words |(read sys$pipe line ; line=""""+line+"""" ; def/job value &line )
$ sh log value
"VALUE" = "hello world" (LNM$JOB_85AB4440)
$
IF you are able to change the program, add some code to it to write the required values into symbols or logicals (see LIB$ routines)
If you can modify the program, using LIB$SET_SYMBOL in the program defines a DCL symbol (what you are calling a variable) for DCL. That's the cleanest way to do this. If it really needs to be a logical, then there are system calls that define logicals.
I would like to do
register s3n://uw-cse344-code/myudfs.jar
-- load the test file into Pig
--raw = LOAD 's3n://uw-cse344-test/cse344-test-file' USING TextLoader as (line:chararray);
-- later you will load to other files, example:
raw = LOAD 's3n://uw-cse344/btc-2010-chunk-000' USING TextLoader as (line:chararray);
-- parse each line into ntriples
ntriples = foreach raw generate FLATTEN(myudfs.RDFSplit3(line)) as (subject:chararray,predicate:chararray,object:chararray);
--filter 1
subjects1 = filter ntriples by subject matches '.*rdfabout\\.com.*' PARALLEL 50;
--filter 2
subjects2 = subjects1;
but I get the error:
2012-03-10 01:19:18,039 [main] ERROR org.apache.pig.tools.grunt.Grunt - ERROR 1200: mismatched input ';' expecting LEFT_PAREN
Details at logfile: /home/hadoop/pig_1331342327467.log
so it seems pig doesn't like that. How do I accomplish this?
i don't think that kind of 'typical' assignment works in pig. It's not really a programming language in the strict sense - it's a high-level language on top of hadoop with some specialized functions.
i think you'll need to simply re-project the data from subjects1 to subjects2, such as:
subjects2 = foreach subjects1 generate $0, $1, $2;
another approach might be to use the LIMIT function with some absurdly high parameter.
subjects2 = subjects2 LIMIT 100000000 ;
there could be a lot of reasons why that doesn't make sense, but it's a thought.
i sense you are considering doing things as you would in a programming language
i have found that rarely works out like you want it to but you can always get the job done once you think like Pig.
As I understand your example fro DataScience coursera course.
It's strange but I found the same problem. This code works on the on amount of data and don't on the another.
Because we need to change parameters I used this code:
filtered2 = foreach filtered generate subject as subject2, predicate as predicate2, object as object2;