Output is always zeros (quotient and remainder) in the code shown below.
Even if I assign value of b to remainder,it is giving 0. I have checked for many times but I am not able to understand what the issue is. While compiling, it is showing 2 warnings:
- Initial value of "b" depends on value of signal "divisor".
What is the problem?
-- DIVIDER
library ieee;
use ieee.numeric_bit.all;
entity unsigned_divider is
port(
-- the two inputs
dividend: in bit_vector(15 downto 0);
divisor : in bit_vector(15 downto 0);
-- the two outputs
quotient : out bit_vector(15 downto 0);
remainder : out bit_vector(15 downto 0)
);
end entity unsigned_divider;
architecture behave of unsigned_divider is
begin
process
variable a : bit_vector(15 downto 0):=dividend;
variable b : bit_vector(15 downto 0):=divisor;
variable p : bit_vector(15 downto 0):= (others => '0');
variable i : integer:=0;
begin
for i in 0 to 15 loop
p(15 downto 1) := p(14 downto 0);
p(0) := a(15);
a(15 downto 1) := a(14 downto 0);
p := bit_vector(unsigned(p) - unsigned(b));
if(p(15) ='1') then
a(0) :='0';
p := bit_vector(unsigned(p) + unsigned(b));
else
a(0) :='1';
end if;
wait for 1 ns;
end loop;
quotient <= a after 1 ns;
remainder <= p after 1 ns;
end process;
end behave;
You should have explicit assignments to the variables a and b inside the process statement part (as sequential signal assignments). The declarations:
variable a : bit_vector(15 downto 0):=dividend;
variable b : bit_vector(15 downto 0):=divisor;
Should be:
variable a : bit_vector(15 downto 0);
variable b : bit_vector(15 downto 0);
And in the process statement part (following the begin in the process):
a := dividend;
b := divisor;
These overcome the issue natipar mentions, that the values are only assigned to a and b during initialization.
Further should you desire to have a 1 ns delay you should have an explicit wait statement as the last sequential statement of the process statement process statement part:
wait on dividend, divisor;
These make your process statement look something like this (with indentation added):
process
variable a : bit_vector(15 downto 0); -- := dividend;
variable b : bit_vector(15 downto 0); -- := divisor;
variable p : bit_vector(15 downto 0) := (others => '0');
variable i : integer := 0;
begin
a := dividend;
b := divisor;
for i in 0 to 15 loop
p(15 downto 1) := p(14 downto 0);
p(0) := a(15);
a(15 downto 1) := a(14 downto 0);
p := bit_vector(unsigned(p) - unsigned(b));
if p(15) = '1' then
a(0) :='0';
p := bit_vector(unsigned(p) + unsigned(b));
else
a(0) := '1';
end if;
wait for 1 ns;
end loop;
quotient <= a after 1 ns;
remainder <= p after 1 ns;
wait on dividend, divisor;
end process;
(Note the space between the numeric literal and the units, required by IEEE Std 1076-2008, 15.3 Lexical elements, separators and delimiters paragraph 4, the last sentence "At least one separator is required between an identifier or an abstract literal and an adjacent identifier or abstract literal.", despite Modelsim not requiring it).
Writing a simple testbench we find at least one error in your restoring division algorithm:
entity unsigned_divider_tb is
end entity;
architecture foo of unsigned_divider_tb is
signal dividend, divisor: bit_vector (15 downto 0) := (others => '0');
signal quotient, remainder: bit_vector (15 downto 0);
function to_string(inp: bit_vector) return string is
variable image_str: string (1 to inp'length);
alias input_str: bit_vector (1 to inp'length) is inp;
begin
for i in input_str'range loop
image_str(i) := character'VALUE(BIT'IMAGE(input_str(i)));
end loop;
return image_str;
end;
begin
DUT:
entity work.unsigned_divider
port map (
dividend,
divisor,
quotient,
remainder
);
MONITOR:
process (quotient, remainder)
begin
report "quotient = " & to_string (quotient) severity NOTE;
report "remainder = " & to_string (remainder) severity NOTE;
end process;
end architecture;
ghdl -a unsigned_divider.vhdl
ghdl -e unsigned_divider_tb
ghdl -r unsigned_divider_tb
unsigned_divider.vhdl:83:9:#0ms:(report note): quotient = 0000000000000000
unsigned_divider.vhdl:84:9:#0ms:(report note): remainder = 0000000000000000
unsigned_divider.vhdl:83:9:#17ns:(report note): quotient = 1111111111111111
unsigned_divider.vhdl:84:9:#17ns:(report note): remainder = 0000000000000000
(And a note on interpretation, the transactions reported at time 0 ms are the default assignments performed as a result of elaboration).
Your algorithm gives a wrong answer for division by 0.
Adding a stimulus process to the testbench:
STIMULUS:
process
begin
wait for 20 ns;
dividend <= x"ffff";
divisor <= x"000f";
end process;
Shows it can get the right answer too:
unsigned_divider.vhdl:83:9:#37ns:(report note): quotient = 0001000100010001
unsigned_divider.vhdl:84:9:#37ns:(report note): remainder = 0000000000000000
And with the testbench and added wait statements and assignments in the stimulus process you can explore further.
I've always been a fan of non-restoring division myself, because the adds or subtracts take a clock in a clocked divider.
Variable assignments take effect immediately; but the signal, at the moment of the creation of that variable, has no value, so you cannot expect the assignments
variable a : bit_vector(15 downto 0):=dividend;
variable b : bit_vector(15 downto 0):=divisor;
to work correctly. I'm a bit surprised that there are no complaints for the assignment to the variable a though. Perhaps it is your second warning. You should define the variables the way you do, but leave the assignment for later, in the begin segment of your process.
P.S. Also, you might want to change remainder <= p after 1ns; to remainder <= p after 1 ns;.
Related
I have this code in VHDL:
library IEEE;
use IEEE.STD_LOGIC_1164.ALL;
use IEEE.STD_LOGIC_UNSIGNED.ALL;
use ieee.NUMERIC_STD.all;
entity Div is
Port ( Ain : in STD_LOGIC_VECTOR (6 downto 0);
Bin : in STD_LOGIC_VECTOR (6 downto 0);
Q : out STD_LOGIC_VECTOR (6 downto 0);
R : out STD_LOGIC_VECTOR (6 downto 0)
Rez : out std_logic_vector(13 downto 0));
end Div;
architecture Behavioral of Div is
begin
Proc1 : process (Ain, Bin) is
variable cnt : std_logic_vector(6 downto 0);
variable Atemp : std_logic_vector(6 downto 0);
begin
if (Ain < Bin) then
cnt := "0000000";
Atemp := Ain;
elsif (Ain = Bin) then
cnt := "0000001";
Atemp := (others => '0');
elsif (Ain > Bin) then
cnt := "0000001";
Atemp := (Ain - Bin);
while (Atemp >= Bin) loop
Atemp := (Atemp - Bin);
cnt := cnt + "0000001";
end loop;
end if;
Q <= cnt;
R <= Atemp;
Rez <= "0000000" & cnt;
end process Proc1;
end Behavioral;
and when I synt in Xilinx, I have this error message
Non-static loop limit exceeded
at that while loop.
When VHDL is synthesised, the synth tool needs to unwrap your loop to create a circuit. Because it has no idea what the Atemp or Bin are, other than they are 7 bit integers, it has to assume that Atemp and Bin could be static forever, and hence the loop never unrolls.
The problem with your code is that you used a while loop. Your HDL needs to describe a circuit, and a while loop generally doesn't. Instead of using a while loop, consider using a clock in your process and incrementing the counter by 1 on each clock. Circuits have no knowledge of time without a clock.
I have a priority encoding function that returns a vector containing a 1 at the position where the first 1 is found in the input vector. The function works as expected, unless I try to negate the input vector. Here's an example that demonstrates the unexpected behavior:
LIBRARY ieee;
USE ieee.std_logic_1164.ALL;
entity tb IS
end tb;
architecture run of tb is
constant N : natural := 5;
function get_first_one_in_vec (vec_in: std_logic_vector) return std_logic_vector is
variable ret: std_logic_vector(vec_in'high downto vec_in'low);
begin
ret := (others => '0');
for i in vec_in'low to vec_in'high loop
if vec_in(i)='1' then
ret(i) := '1';
exit;
end if;
end loop;
return ret;
end get_first_one_in_vec;
signal a : std_logic_vector(N-1 downto 0);
signal abar : std_logic_vector(N-1 downto 0);
signal first_a : std_logic_vector(N-1 downto 0);
signal first_nota : std_logic_vector(N-1 downto 0);
signal first_abar : std_logic_vector(N-1 downto 0);
begin
process
begin
a <= "10100";
wait for 10 ns;
a <= "01011";
wait for 10 ns;
wait;
end process;
abar <= not(a);
first_a <= get_first_one_in_vec(a);
first_nota <= get_first_one_in_vec(not(a));
first_abar <= get_first_one_in_vec(abar);
end run;
To my understanding, first_nota should be the same as first_abar. However, my simulator (ModelSim - Intel FPGA Starter Edition 10.5b, rev. 2016.10) thinks otherwise, as you can see here:
What am I missing here?
This works OK:
function get_first_one_in_vec (vec_in: std_logic_vector) return std_logic_vector is
variable ret: std_logic_vector(vec_in'length downto 1);
variable inp: std_logic_vector(vec_in'length downto 1) := vec_in;
begin
ret := (others => '0');
for i in inp'right to inp'left loop
if inp(i)='1' then
ret(i) := '1';
exit;
end if;
end loop;
return ret;
end get_first_one_in_vec;
https://www.edaplayground.com/x/3zP_
Why does yours not work? Well, when you call your function with the not operator* as part of the expression:
first_nota <= get_first_one_in_vec(not a);
the numbering of the input to the function is changed to 1 to by the not operator. Why? Here is the code for the not operator and you can see why:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
-- not
-------------------------------------------------------------------
FUNCTION "not" ( l : std_logic_vector ) RETURN std_logic_vector IS
-- pragma built_in SYN_NOT
-- pragma subpgm_id 204
--synopsys synthesis_off
ALIAS lv : std_logic_vector ( 1 TO l'LENGTH ) IS l;
VARIABLE result : std_logic_vector ( 1 TO l'LENGTH ) := (OTHERS => 'X');
--synopsys synthesis_on
BEGIN
--synopsys synthesis_off
FOR i IN result'RANGE LOOP
result(i) := not_table( lv(i) );
END LOOP;
RETURN result;
--synopsys synthesis_on
END;
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, this breaks your code (which starts scanning from the other end of the word).
One way of making function agnostic to the ordering of the numbering of its input is to normalise the inputs like this:
variable inp: std_logic_vector(vec_in'length downto 1) := vec_in;
Once you have done this, you're in control. So, instead of loops from 'high downto 'low, we can be more explicit and loop from 'right to 'left:
for i in inp'right to inp'left loop
not is an operator not a function. You don't need the brackets.
My goal is to count the number of "01" sequences in iaI array.
I tried following code but it does not work as I assumed.
entity prob35 is
port (
iaI : in std_logic_vector (11 downto 0);
oaO : out std_logic_vector (2 downto 0)
);
end prob35;
architecture Behavioral of prob35 is
signal counter : integer := 0;
begin
process(iaI)
begin
for i in 1 to 11 loop
if (iaI(i-1)='1' and iaI(i)='0') then
counter<=counter+1;
end if;
end loop;
oaO<=conv_std_logic_vector(counter,oaO'length);
end process;
end Behavioral;
There is significant difference between signals and variables in vhdl. While the variable takes the value of assignment immediately, signal in sequential code (like process) are used to create flip-flops, which inherently do not immediately take the value of their assignment. You should use variable to achieve desired functionality here.
entity prob35 is
port (
iaI : in std_logic_vector (11 downto 0);
oaO : out std_logic_vector (2 downto 0)
);
end prob35;
architecture Behavioral of prob35 is
begin
process(iaI)
variable counter : unsigned(2 downto 0) := "000";
begin
counter := "000";
for i in 1 to 11 loop
if (iaI(i-1)='1' and iaI(i)='0') then
counter := counter + 1;
end if;
end loop;
oaO <= std_logic_vector(counter);
end process;
end Behavioral;
I have a 32 bit barrel shifter using behavior architecture. Now I need to convert it to an n-bit shifter. The problem that I'm facing is that there is some kind of restriction to the for loop that I have to put a constant as sentinel value.
Following is my Code
library IEEE;
use IEEE.std_logic_1164.all;
Entity bshift is -- barrel shifter
port (left : in std_logic; -- '1' for left, '0' for right
logical : in std_logic; -- '1' for logical, '0' for arithmetic
shift : in std_logic_vector(4 downto 0); -- shift count
input : in std_logic_vector (31 downto 0);
output : out std_logic_vector (31 downto 0) );
end entity bshift;
architecture behavior of bshift is
function to_integer(sig : std_logic_vector) return integer is
variable num : integer := 0; -- descending sig as integer
begin
for i in sig'range loop
if sig(i)='1' then
num := num*2+1;
else
num := num*2;
end if;
end loop; -- i
return num;
end function to_integer;
begin -- behavior
shft32: process(left, logical, input, shift)
variable shft : integer;
variable out_right_arithmetic : std_logic_vector(31 downto 0);
variable out_right_logical : std_logic_vector(31 downto 0);
variable out_left_logical : std_logic_vector(31 downto 0);
begin
shft := to_integer(shift);
if logical = '0' then
out_right_arithmetic := (31 downto 32-shft => input(31)) &
input(31 downto shft);
output <= out_right_arithmetic after 250 ps;
else
if left = '1' then
out_left_logical := input(31-shft downto 0) &
(shft-1 downto 0 => '0');
output <= out_left_logical after 250 ps;
else
out_right_logical := (31 downto 32-shft => '0') &
input(31 downto shft);
output <= out_right_logical after 250 ps;
end if;
end if;
end process shft32;
end architecture behavior; -- of bshift
any help will be appreciated
Your code is not a barrel shifter implementation, because a barrel shift is a mux-tree.
If you have a 32 bit BarrelShifter module, you will need a 5 bit Shift input, wherein every bit position i enables a 2^i shift operation.
So for example shift = 5d -> 00101b enables a mux in stage 1 to shift for 1 bit and a mux in stage 3 to shift 4 bits. All other mux stages are set to pass through (shift(i) = 0).
I also would not advice to mix up basic shifting with shift modes (arithmetic, logic, rotate) and directions (left, right).
arithmetic and logic is only different in the shift-in value
shift right can be done by a conversion => shiftright = reverse(shiftleft(reverse(input), n)
An open source implementation can be found here:
https://github.com/VLSI-EDA/PoC/blob/master/src/arith/arith_shifter_barrel.vhdl
I have a question which is probably in 2 parts:
I am using a (nominally 32 bit) integer variable which I would like to write to an 8 bit UART as 4 bytes (i.e., as binary data)
i.e. variable Count : integer range 0 to 2147483647;
How should I chop the 32 bit integer variable into 4 separate 8 bit std_logic_vectors as expected by my UART code, and how should I pass these to the UART one byte at a time ?
I am aware std_logic_vector(to_unsigned(Count, 32)) will convert the integer variable into a 32 bit std_logic_vector, but then what ? Should I create a 32 bit std_logic_vector, assign the converted Count value to it, then subdivide it using something like the following code ? I realise the following assumes the count variable does not change during the 4 clock cycles, and assumes the UART can accept a new byte every clock cycle, and lacks any means of re-triggering the 4 byte transmit cycle, but am I on the right track here, or is there a better way ?
variable CountOut : std_logic_vector(31 downto 0);
process (clock)
variable Index : integer range 0 to 4 := 0;
begin
if rising_edge(clock) then
CountOut <= std_logic_vector(to_unsigned(Count, 32);
if (Index = 0) then
UartData(7 downto 0) <= CountOut(31 downto 24);
Index := 1;
elsif (Index = 1) then
UartData(7 downto 0) <= CountOut(23 downto 16);
Index := 2;
elsif (Index = 2) then
UartData(7 downto 0) <= CountOut(15 downto 8);
Index := 3;
elsif (Index =31) then
UartData(7 downto 0) <= CountOut(7 downto 0);
Index := 4;
else
Index := Index;
end if;
end if;
end process;
Any comments or recommendations would be appreciated.
Thanks,
MAI-AU.
You seem to be on the right track. I believe there are two basic solutions to this problem:
Register the output value as a 32-bit vector, and use different ranges for each output operation (as you did in your code example)
Register the output value as a 32-bit vector, and shift this value 8 bits at a time after each output operation. This way you can use the same range in all operations. The code below should give you an idea:
process (clock)
variable Index: integer range 0 to 4 := 0;
begin
if rising_edge(clock) then
if (Index = 0) then
CountOut <= std_logic_vector(to_unsigned(Count, 32));
Index := Index + 1;
elsif (Index < 4) then
UartData <= CountOut(31 downto 24);
CountOut <= CountOut sll 8;
Index := Index + 1;
end if;
end if;
end process;
Also, please check your assignments, in your example CountOut is declared as a variable but is assigned to as a signal.
There's nothing wrong with the code you've shown. You can do something to separate the the assignment to UartData using Index to allow a loop.
library ieee;
use ieee.std_logic_1164.all;
entity union is
end entity;
architecture foo of union is
type union32 is array (integer range 1 to 4) of std_logic_vector(7 downto 0);
signal UartData: std_logic_vector(7 downto 0);
begin
TEST:
process
variable quad: union32;
constant fourbytes: std_logic_vector(31 downto 0) := X"deadbeef";
begin
quad := union32'(fourbytes(31 downto 24), fourbytes(23 downto 16),
fourbytes(15 downto 8),fourbytes(7 downto 0));
for i in union32'RANGE loop
wait for 9.6 us;
UartData <= Quad(i);
end loop;
wait for 9.6 us; -- to display the last byte
wait; -- one ping only
end process;
end architecture;
Or use a type conversion function to hide complexity:
library ieee;
use ieee.std_logic_1164.all;
entity union is
type union32 is array (integer range 1 to 4) of std_logic_vector(7 downto 0);
end entity;
architecture fee of union is
signal UartData: std_logic_vector(7 downto 0);
function toquad (inp: std_logic_vector(31 downto 0)) return union32 is
begin
return union32'(inp(31 downto 24), inp(23 downto 16),
inp(15 downto 8), inp( 7 downto 0));
end function;
begin
TEST:
process
variable quad: union32;
constant fourbytes: std_logic_vector(31 downto 0) := X"deadbeef";
begin
quad := toquad (fourbytes);
for i in union32'RANGE loop
wait for 9.6 us;
UartData <= Quad(i);
end loop;
wait for 9.6 us; -- to display the last byte
wait; -- one ping only
end process;
end architecture;
And gives the same answer.