im new at vhdl coding, and there is a problem with if statement
so my code is the following
i want to convert a vector(bar), if the statement is true (so in this example if its smaller than 10)
process(bar)
variable tmp : integer;
begin
tmp := to_integer(signed(bar));
if tmp < 10 then
good(3) <= bar(3);
good(2) <= bar(3) xor bar(2);
good(1) <= bar(2) xor bar(1);
good(0) <= bar(1) xor bar(0);
end if;
end process;
but the problem is that the statement is not working, if i put a bigger number for example "1111" it is converting in the same way as it converted before
From the comments it seems you want good to be set to 0 whenever bar >= 10. In that case you can just do:
process(bar)
variable tmp : integer;
begin
tmp := to_integer(signed(bar));
if tmp < 10 then
good(3) <= bar(3);
good(2) <= bar(3) xor bar(2);
good(1) <= bar(2) xor bar(1);
good(0) <= bar(1) xor bar(0);
else
good <= (others => '0');
end if;
end process;
The vector good is only assigned when tmp < 10. So there is a latch inferred by this process.
You need to define what's the "else" value for good in any other conditions.
You state that
if i put a bigger number for example "1111" it is converting in the
same way as it converted before
As Tricky pointed out in a comment above, your problem is this line here:
tmp := to_integer(signed(bar));
^^^^^^
You have not posted an MCVE, so I cannot be sure, but your question implies that bar is 4 bits wide. Assuming that is the case, the value "1111" as a signed number is -1. So, if bar is set to "1111", tmp will be -1. -1 is less than 10, so this if statement will evaluate as true:
if tmp < 10 then
If you consider than "1111" is greater than 10 (ie it's 15), then you need to convert via the unsigned type, ie
tmp := to_integer(unsigned(bar));
^^^^^^^^
The range of a 4-bit signed number is -8 to +7. All the values in that range are less than 10, so your if statement will evaluate as true whatever the value of bar.
The above solution assumes that bar is always zero or positive. If that is not the case, then you need more bits in the signal bar. 5 is enough. A 5-bit signed number has the range -16 to +15.
So, I can see two solutions:
use an unsigned type in your type conversion or
make bar 5 bits
or wider.
Others have pointed out that, assuming this is synthsisable code and assuming that this is intended to be combinational logic, then you are missing a branch in your if statement; you don't drive the signal good in the case that the if statement is false and so if you were to synthesise this code as combinational logic, then you would get latches. But that is not the question you asked.
Related
I wanted to loop through an array elements and later output them.
I don't think that the for loop is correct.
Could someone help with this, please ?
enter image description here
In VHDL, a for loop is a shorthand notation for creating parallel paths of logic.
In your example, the loop becomes a shift-by-1 index mapping assignment:
r_array(1) <= myArray1(0);
r_array(2) <= myArray1(1);
r_array(3) <= myArray1(2);
r_array(4) <= myArray1(3);
r_array(5) <= myArray1(4);
r_array(6) <= myArray1(5);
r_array(7) <= myArray1(6);
Since r_array is scalar type integer type and not a vector, this won't work as is.
Try using r_array as an index counter, then on each rising edge clock the next index of myArray will be assigned and our array index counter will increment by 1 (or wrap over back 0).
if rising_edge(i_CE1Hz) then
if r_array <= 7 then
r_array <= r_array + 1;
else
r_array <= 0;
end if;
o_element <= myArray(r_array); -- new output signal
end if;
I'm currently working on writing a simple counter in VHDL, trying to genericize it as much as possible. Ideally I end up with a counter that can pause, count up/down, and take just two integer (min, max) values to determine the appropriate bus widths.
As far as I can tell, in order to get an integer of a given range, I just need to delcare
VARIABLE cnt: INTEGER RANGE min TO max := 0
Where min and max are defined as generics (both integers) in the entity. My understanding of this is that if min is 0, max is 5, for example, it will create an integer variable of 3 bits.
My problem is that I actually want to output this integer. So, naturally, I write
counterOut : OUT INTEGER RANGE min TO max
But this does not appear to be doing what I need. I'm generating a schematic block in Quartus Prime from this, and it creates a bus output from [min...max]. For example, if min = 0, max = 65, it outputs a 66 bit bus. Instead of the seven bit bus it should.
If I restricted the counter to unsigned values I might be able to just math out the output bus size, but I'd like to keep this as flexible as possible, and of course I'd like to know what I'm actually doing wrong and how to do it properly.
TL;DR: I want a VHDL entity to take generic min,max values, and generate an integer output bus of the required width to hold the range of values. How do?
If it matters, I'm using Quartus Prime Lite Edition V20.1.0 at the moment.
Note: I know I can use STD_LOGIC_VECTOR instead, but it is going to simulate significantly slower and is less easy to use than the integer type as far as I have read. I can provide more of my code if necessary, but it's really this one line that's the problem as far as I can tell.
I originally posted this on Stackexchange, but I think Stackoverflow might be a better place since it's more of a programming than a hardware problem.
EDIT: Complete code shown below
LIBRARY ieee;
USE ieee.std_logic_1164.all;
USE ieee.numeric_std.all;
USE ieee.std_logic_signed.all;
ENTITY Counter IS
GENERIC (modulo : INTEGER := 32;
min : INTEGER := 0;
max : INTEGER := 64);
PORT( pause : IN STD_LOGIC;
direction : IN STD_LOGIC; -- 1 is up, 0 is down
clk : IN STD_LOGIC;
counterOut : OUT INTEGER RANGE min TO max --RANGE 0 TO 32 -- THIS line is the one generating an incorrect output bus width
);
END ENTITY Counter;
-- or entity
ARCHITECTURE CounterArch OF Counter IS
BEGIN
PROCESS(direction, pause, clk)
VARIABLE cnt : INTEGER RANGE min TO max := 0;
VARIABLE dir : INTEGER;
BEGIN
IF direction = '1' THEN
dir := 1;
ELSE
dir := -1;
END IF;
IF clk'EVENT AND clk = '1' THEN
IF pause = '0'THEN
IF (cnt = modulo AND direction = '1') THEN
cnt := min; -- If we're counting up and hit modulo, reset to min value.
ELSIF (cnt = min AND direction = '0') THEN
cnt := modulo; --Counting down hit 0, go back to modulo.
ELSE
cnt := cnt + dir;
END IF;
END IF;
END IF;
counterOut <= cnt;
END PROCESS;
END ARCHITECTURE CounterArch;
I'm storing two tables in two signals. One table keeps the key (address) and the other keeps the value corresponding to the key. I need to compare an input to the key and, if they match, return the value stored.
The reason why I need this is for a dynamic lookup table for branch instruction prediction. In the fetch stage of a processor I get the input Instruction_Address and I return a branch_To_Address and a branch_Prediction. Initially I want to store 16 predictions/branch addresses and use a circular buffer ring to overwrite as needed.
I've been trying to use a FOR with a nested IF to search for the key inside keyTable.
The whole module seems to work fine, except when I compare two bit_vectors with the IF statement. I need this twice (one on read and another on write) and hence I need to "sweep" the keysTable so I can see if the address that is being looked up has an entry.
I noticed the error upon simulation, where the ELSE clause is being called always regardless of the keysTable having the right entries.
Verifiable example:
library IEEE;
use ieee.numeric_bit.all;
entity branch_prediction_table is
generic (
addrSize : NATURAL := 4;
tableSize : NATURAL := 4);
port (
clock : in bit;
input_addr: in bit_vector(addrSize-1 downto 0);
return_value : out bit );
end branch_prediction_table;
architecture branch_table of branch_prediction_table is
signal keysTable : bit_vector(addrSize*tableSize-1 downto 0) := ( others => '0');
signal valuesTable : bit_vector(tableSize*2-1 downto 0) := ( others => '0');
begin
tableProc: process(clock) is
variable valueFromTable : bit;
begin
if rising_edge(clock) then
search_table: for iR in (tableSize-1) to 0 loop
if (keysTable(addrSize*(iR+1)-1 downto addrSize*iR) = input_addr) then
valueFromTable := valuesTable((iR+1)*2-1);
EXIT search_table;
else
valueFromTable := '0';
end if;
end loop search_table;
return_value <= valueFromTable;
end if; -- rising_edge(clock)
end process tableProc;
end branch_table;
with verifiable testbench simulation TCL:
add wave -position insertpoint \
sim:/branch_prediction_table/addrSize \
sim:/branch_prediction_table/clock \
sim:/branch_prediction_table/input_addr \
sim:/branch_prediction_table/keysTable \
sim:/branch_prediction_table/return_value \
sim:/branch_prediction_table/tableSize \
sim:/branch_prediction_table/valuesTable
force -freeze sim:/branch_prediction_table/valuesTable 11111111 0
force -freeze sim:/branch_prediction_table/keysTable 1111101001100011 0
force -freeze sim:/branch_prediction_table/clock 0 0, 1 {5000 ps} -r {10 ns}
run 10 ns
force -freeze sim:/branch_prediction_table/input_addr 1010 0
run 20 ns
force -freeze sim:/branch_prediction_table/input_addr 1111 0
run 10 ns
and testbench simulation result showing that error is indeed in the IF:
I have tried converting them with to_integer(unsigned(bit_vector1)) = to_integer(unsigned(bit_vector2)) with no avail
As user1155120 pointed out:
The problem lies within search_table: for iR **in** (tableSize-1) to 0 loop
It should've been "down to" as L > R. Since I used "in" with L>R, that produces a null range and the for loop iteration is said to be complete.
(IEEE Std 1076-2008 5.2 Scalar types, "A range specifies a subset of values of a scalar type. A range is said to be a null range if the specified subset is empty. The range L to R is called an ascending range; if L > R, then the range is a null range. The range L downto R is called a descending range; if L < R, then the range is a null range.").
10.10 Loop statement "For the execution of a loop with a for iteration scheme, the discrete range is first evaluated. If the discrete range is a null range, the iteration scheme is said to be complete, ..."
For an application I am creating I would like to use a decoder that helps write to one of 42 registers. In order to account for all possible registers, I need a 6 bit input since the ceiling of lg(42) is 6.
However, this will create a 6 to 64 decoder, leaving me with an extra 12 outputs that I do not know how to handle. I know that in VHDL I can write a case statement for it:
case input is
when "000000" => output <= reg0;
when "000001" => output <= reg1;
.
.
.
when others => output <= ???;
end case;
Hopefully everything else will be designed so that an input > 41 does not occur, but how should the code be written to handle that case? Is there a way to handle it without stopping the application some how? Or, as an alternative, is there a way to write a decoder that has only 42 outputs?
An easier way to write this is:
type regs_type is array (integer range <>) of std_logic_vector(7 downto 0);
signal regs : regs_type (0 to 41) := (others => (others => '0'));
...
output <= regs(to_integer(unsigned(input));
Assuming 'input' is an std_logic_vector, and that your registers are 8-bits wide.
Then use the regs array for your registers 0-41. I suppose if you wanted to be explicit about registers 42+, you could create an array of size 64, and leave the upper elements unconnected, but I believe the above code would achieve the same thing.
If your registers actually have meaningful names, not just reg0 etc, you can have a separate block of code connecting these to the regs array, example:
regs(0) <= setup_reg;
regs(1) <= data_out;
and so on. If I was doing it this way, I would have defined constants for the regs index values, example:
constant SETUP_REG_ADDRESS : integer := 0;
constant DATA_OUT_ADDRESS : integer := 1;
...
regs(SETUP_REG_ADDRESS) <= setup_reg;
regs(DATA_OUT_ADDRESS) <= data_out;
Alternatively, if you wanted to keep the case statement, you could write your others clause as
when others => output <= (others => '-');
This 'don't care' value allows the tools to do whatever is the most efficient in these cases that you believe to be unreachable anyway. If you were concerned about something undefined being assigned to output if input somehow did exceed 41, you could always replace the '-' with a '0'.
Description:
I want to write vhdl code that finds the largest integer in the array A which is an array of 20 integers.
Question:
what should my algorithm look like, to input where the sequential statements are?
my vhdl code:
highnum: for i in 0 to 19 loop
i = 0;
i < 20;
i<= i + 1;
end loop highnum;
This does not need to be synthesizable but I dont know how to form this for loop a detailed example explaining how to would be appreciated.
Simply translating the C loop to VHDL, inside a VHDL clocked process, will work AND be synthesisable. It will generate a LOT of hardware because it has to generate the output in a single clock cycle, but that doesn't matter if you are just simulating it.
If that is too much hardware, then you have to implement it as a state machine with at least two states, Idle and Calculating, so that it performs only one loop iteration per clock cycle while Calculating, and returns to the Idle state when done.
First of all you should know how have you defined the array in vhdl.
Let me define an array for you.
type array_of_integer array(19 downto 0) of integer;
signal A : array_of_integer :=(others => 0);
signal max : integer;
-- Now above is the array in vhdl of integers all are initialized to value 0.
A(0) <= 1;
A(1) <= 2;
--
--
A(19)<= 19;
-- Now the for loop for calculating maximum
max <= A(0);
for i in 0 to 19 loop
if (A(i) > max) then
max <= A(i);
end if;
end loop;
-- Now If you have problems in understating that where to put which part of code .. in a ----vhdl entity format .. i.e process, ports, etc... you can reply !