I want to copy the Average Variable value to the specific location of 2d Array. For this code it is array_new_signal11(3,2).
Can anyone guide me how can I do this? This code gives me error while simulation.
architecture Behavioral of Correction is
type array_new is array (0 to 4, 0 to 4) of integer;
signal array_new_signal: array_new;
begin
array_new_signal11 <= ((1,2,3,4,5),
(4,5,6,7,8),
(7,8,9,0,1),
(1,3,6,5,9),
(2,3,5,4,5));
Process(kelvin)
variable Sum1: integer:= 0;
Variable Sum2: integer:= 0;
Variable Total_Sum: integer:= 0;
Variable Average: integer:= 0;
begin
for Row in 0 to 4 loop
for Column in 0 to 4 loop
if(Row = 1 and Column = 1) then
for Column in 1 to 3 loop
sum1 := array_new_signal11(Row, Column) + Sum1;
end loop;
end if;
if(Row = 2 and Column = 1) then
for Column in 1 to 3 loop
sum2 := array_new_signal11(Row, Column) + Sum2;
end loop;
end if;
end loop;
end loop;
Total_Sum := Sum1 + Sum2;
Average := Total_Sum / 8;
**array_new_signal11(3,2) <= Average;**
end Process;
end Behavioral;
Constructing a Minimal, Complete and Verifiable example from the question:
entity correction is
end correction;
architecture behavioral of correction is
type array_new is array (0 to 4, 0 to 4) of integer;
signal array_new_signal11: array_new := ((1,2,3,4,5),
(4,5,6,7,8),
(7,8,9,0,1),
(1,3,6,5,9),
(2,3,5,4,5));
signal kelvin: boolean;
begin
-- array_new_signal11 <= ((1,2,3,4,5),
-- (4,5,6,7,8),
-- (7,8,9,0,1),
-- (1,3,6,5,9),
-- (2,3,5,4,5));
process (kelvin)
variable sum1: integer:= 0;
variable sum2: integer:= 0;
variable total_sum: integer:= 0;
variable average: integer:= 0;
begin
for row in 0 to 4 loop
for column in 0 to 4 loop
if row = 1 and column = 1 then
for column in 1 to 3 loop
sum1 := array_new_signal11(row, column) + sum1;
end loop;
end if;
if row = 2 and column = 1 then
for column in 1 to 3 loop
sum2 := array_new_signal11(row, column) + sum2;
end loop;
end if;
end loop;
end loop;
total_sum := sum1 + sum2;
average := total_sum / 8;
report "sum1 = " & integer'image(sum1) & ", " &
"sum2 = " & integer'image(sum2) & ", " &
"average = " & integer'image(average);
array_new_signal11(3,2) <= average;
end process;
MONITOR_PROCESS:
process
begin
wait on array_new_signal11;
for row in 0 to 4 loop
report "row" & integer'image(row) & " = " &
integer'image(array_new_signal11(row,0)) & ", " &
integer'image(array_new_signal11(row,1)) & ", " &
integer'image(array_new_signal11(row,2)) & ", " &
integer'image(array_new_signal11(row,3)) & ", " &
integer'image(array_new_signal11(row,4));
end loop;
end process;
end behavioral;
We see the report statements tell us the average and report the new array values.
We see the Row 3 Column 2 was initialized to 6 and is now 4:
ghdl -a correction.vhdl
ghdl -e correction
ghdl -r correction
correction.vhdl:42:7:#0ms:(report note): sum1 = 18, sum2 = 17, average = 4
correction.vhdl:52:13:#0ms:(report note): row0 = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
correction.vhdl:52:13:#0ms:(report note): row1 = 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
correction.vhdl:52:13:#0ms:(report note): row2 = 7, 8, 9, 0, 1
correction.vhdl:52:13:#0ms:(report note): row3 = 1, 3, 4, 5, 9
correction.vhdl:52:13:#0ms:(report note): row4 = 2, 3, 5, 4, 5
as specified by the value of average.
As Renaud Pacalet notes you have two different processes driving array_new_signal11, which is not legal in VHDL, as it's element type integer is not a resolved data type.
The solution is to initialize the array in this case where it's declared.
Otherwise every assignment to an element of array signal must be in the same process. The concurrent signal assignment you had will be elaborated to an equivalent process statement and generate an error when elaborated as it was originally shown:
ghdl -r correction
for signal: .correction(behavioral).array_new_signal11(3,2)
./correction:error: several sources for unresolved signal
./correction:error: error during elaboration
(For the ghdl simulator part of elaboration (which consists of linking and loading) is done when invoking simulation (the -r command, the loading part, where the design network is created)).
Renaud Pacalet suggests assigning the array value inside the process, but without an intervening wait statement the values are not available for subsequent use in the same simulation cycle. The new signal values are not available in the same simulation cycle they are assigned.
Each signal assignment schedules a waveform update and only one entry for a particular simulation time is available. In this case it would guarantee array(3, 2) would be the average of eight values of integer'left (which would be incorrect, you should get errors causing simulation to end during the accumulation of sum1 in the unlabelled 3rd loop statement first loop iteration).
And that tells us you need the array initialized before being read.
The only reason the above example succeeds is that there are no array elements when added together won't violate the value range of type integer with the values you specified.
You can get around this sort of thing by using binary array equivalents of integers and paying attention to the needed accuracy.
There are several morals to this story. First, VHDL isn't a programming language, second it's strongly typed and third signals assignment values are never visible in the simulation cycle they are made in.
Note that kelvin has been added as boolean signal to trigger execution of the process once without changing it.
You are trying to drive the array_new_signal11 signal from two different processes. Yes, your first concurrent signal assignment:
array_new_signal11 <= ((1,2,3,4,5),
(4,5,6,7,8),
(7,8,9,0,1),
(1,3,6,5,9),
(2,3,5,4,5));
is a shorthand for a process. It models a hardware driver that continuously imposes these values to your array signal (which is just a bunch of wires, at the end).
Your second process also tries to impose a value to one cell of your array (cell array_new_signal11(3,2)). In electrical engineering, this situation is called a short-circuit: what would you expect when the two drivers disagree? This is also the reason why your simulator refuses this: it does not know what to do with this signal.
Solution: drive this signal from one single process:
process(kelvin)
...
begin
array_new_signal11 <= (
(1,2,3,4,5),
(4,5,6,7,8),
...
for Row in 0 to 4 loop
...
end process;
Notes:
Average being a variable you should have another error on:
Average <= Total_Sum / 8;
which should be:
Average := Total_Sum / 8;
You are using the same loop index (Column) in two nested loops. Not sure what you are trying to do but this is not very safe.
Even with my suggestion to fix your error you will hit another problem: the array_new_signal11 is both an input (you read it) and an output (you assign it) of your process. It should thus also be listed in the sensitivity list. In electrical engineering this is called a combinatorial loop and is usually highly undesirable, except if you want to create an oscillator or a kind of random generator.
Your process is sensitive to signal Kelvin but does not use it. Strange situation. Do you have a clear idea of what hardware you are trying to model?
You probably believe that your process variables are re-initialized to 0 each time the process resumes (that is, each time Kelvin changes). This is not the case: they retain the last value they were assigned. Probably not what you want. You should initialize them at the beginning of your process body.
Related
So, I have a code that shows me a timer that counts up perfectly fine and has a working multiplexer, I now want to add a way to basically store the individual value of each number (1, 10 and 100s ) so I can display them. My VHDL knowledge is really basic but here is an example :
signal n ; integer ;= 0; --this is the lap counter
type laptimeone is array (integer range <>) of integer;
type laptimeten is array (integer range <>) of integer;
type laptimehundred is array (integer range <>) of integer;
where laptimeone, ten and hundred is each of the digits I want to save in my array. and n is just there to help me find my way back to that array with another process.
begin
if (StopState = '0') then
--counter, in seconds. with pause.
if(second_clk'event and secondclk='1') then
bcd0 <= one;
bcd1 <= ten;
bcd2 <= hundred;
one <= one + 1;
if (one = 9) then
one <= 0;
ten <= ten +1;
end if;
if (ten = 9) and (one = 9) then
ten <= 0;
hundred <= hundred + 1;
end if;
if (hundred= 9) and (ten= 9) and (one= 9) then
hundred <= 0;
end if;
end if;
elsif (StopState ='1')
laptimeone(n)<= one
laptimeten(n) <= ten
laptimehundred(n) <= hundred
Now I am using some logic I know from other programming languages, but my endgame is simply that when stopstate is 1 , the timer stops, and the last numbers for one,ten and hundred are stored in my array depending on N which is a lap that I will change on another process.
How would I declare and initialize the arrays that could help me ? and am I able to do what I want to do in here in VHDL where I move my way around an array when storing and reading data by simply using that N ?
what I want to do is the following:
In order to generate the appropriate OUTPUT I have to add a value(2^(stage-small_p+1) to my INPUT and then swapping the LSB (0) with a bit, which position depends on a the difference between the stage-signal and the constant small_p (stage-small_p).
Thanks for your help!
PROCESS(INPUT,stage)
BEGIN
IF stage > small_p THEN
OUTPUT_sig<=STD_LOGIC_VECTOR(TO_UNSIGNED(to_integer(UNSIGNED(INPUT)+2**
(stage-small_p+1)),m));
bit_0 <= OUTPUT_SIG(0);
bit_sp <=OUTPUT_SIG(stage-small_p);
FOR i in 0 to m-1 LOOP
IF (i=0) THEN
OUTPUT(i)<=bit_sp ;
ELSIF (i=(stage-small_p)) THEN
OUTPUT(i)<=bit_0;
ELSE
OUTPUT(i)<=OUTPUT_SIG(i);
END IF;
END LOOP;
ELSE
OUTPUT <= STD_LOGIC_VECTOR(TO_UNSIGNED(0,m));
END IF;
The error seems to be when assigning OUTPUT_SIG(i) to OUTPUT(i):
For example stage = 9 and p_small = 4:
My INPUT is 00110010,
OUTPUT_SIG has the value: 01110010,
whereas the OUTPUT has the value: 01010101.
stage-small_p = 5, so I would expect: 01010011 (Bit 5 and Bit 0 swapped).
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, ..."
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 !
I have a simple question . Is it possible to write a VHDL for loop with step size not equal to 1 e.g 16
The loop should go like
0--> 16 --> 32--> 48.... to some value
any immediate help is appreciated
A possible solution is to use a range that is 1/16th of the desired range and unroll the loop inside it to generate the desired range:
for i in 0 to 3 -- Actually 0 to 48
loop
x(16*i) <= ...
x((16*i)+1) <= ...
(...)
x((16*i)+15) <= ...
end loop;
Another solution would be to use a while instead. Assuming your count variable is an integer:
while (i < 48)
loop
--Do something
i := count + 16;
end loop;
Edit: I haven't tested the code above, you might be unable to change the variable count inside the loop, I'm not sure. Maybe the first solution is the best one.
It is not possible to have a for loop with a step different then 1. You are not even allowed to change it inside the for, like this:
--THIS WILL NOT WORK
for i in 0 to 48 loop
--Do Something
i := i + 15; -- This will NOT increment the loop index by 16
end loop;
And finally, for steps of 2 or 3 you might use nested for's.
But anyway, What are you trying to accomplish? VHDL is a low-level hardware description language, you should be able to achieve whatever you are trying to without fancy for loops.
VHDL has no step parameter in for loop, so the step is always 1 for to
range direction and -1 for downto range direction.
So if you need loop with start and step value, you can do:
...
constant FOR_START : natural := 1;
constant FOR_STEP : natural := 2;
variable idx_v : natural; -- Support index variable
...
for idx_pre in 0 to 3 loop
idx_v := FOR_START + FOR_STEP * idx_pre;
z_o(idx_v) <= a_i(idx_v);
end loop;
A while loop can also be used as alternative:
constant FOR_START : natural := 1;
constant FOR_STEP : natural := 2;
constant FOR_MAX : natural := 7;
variable idx_v : natural;
...
idx_v := FOR_START;
while idx_v <= FOR_MAX loop
z_o(idx_v) <= a_i(idx_v);
idx_v := idx_v + FOR_STEP;
end loop;
How about looping over the entire range, but then using an 'if' statement to only act on every 16th value?
for i in start_thing to end_thing loop
if i mod 16 = 0 then
do things(i)
end if;
end loop; -- i
Or alternately use Next:
for i in start_thing to end_thing loop
next when i mod 16 /= 0 ;
do_things(i)
end loop; -- i
My research says no, but you can declare a second variable that acts as a multiple of your variable inside of your loop.
Yes, it is possible to "for loop" with a step size not equal to 1.
for i in range 1 downto 0 loop
foo(i) <= bar(1-i);
end
loop;