Latch signal without delay - vhdl

Question

I would like to latch a signal, however when I try to do so, I get a delay of one cycle, how can I avoid this?
myLatch: process(wclk, we) -- Can I ommit the we in the sensitivity list?
begin
if wclk'event and wclk = '1' then
lwe <= we;
end if;
end process;
However if I try this and look into the waves during simulation lwe is delayed by one cycle of wclk. All I want tp achieve is to sample we on the rising edge of wclk and keep it stable till the next rising edge. I then assign the latched signal to another entities port map which is defined in the architecture.
==============================================
Well I figured out that I have to omit the wclk'event to get a latch instead of a flip flop. This seems rather unintuitive to me. By simply shortening the time where I sample the signal to be latched I go from latch to flip flop. Can anyone explain why this is and where my perception is wrong. (I am a vhdl beginner)

Answer 1

First off, a few observations on the process you pasted above:
myLatch: process(wclk, we)
begin
if wclk'event and wclk = '1' then
lwe <= we;
end if;
end process;
The signal we can be omitted from the sensitivity list because you have described a clocked process. The only signals required in the sensitivity list of a process like this are the clock and the asynchronous reset if you choose to use one (a synchronous reset would not need to be added to the sensitivity list).
Instead of using if wclk'event and wclk = '1' then you should instead use if rising_edge(wclk) then or if falling_edge(wclk) then, there's a good blog post on the reasons why here.
By omitting the wclk'event you changed the process from a clocked process to a combinatorial process, like so:
myLatch: process(wclk, we)
begin
if wclk = '1' then
lwe <= we;
end if;
end process;
In a combinatorial process all inputs should be present in the sensitivity list, so you would be correct to have both wclk and we in the list as they had an influence on the output. Normally you would ensure that lwe is assigned in all cases of your if statement to avoid inferring a latch, however this appears to be your intention in this case.
Latches in general should be avoided, so if you find yourself needing one you should perhaps pause and consider your approach. Doulos have a couple of articles on latches here and here that you might find useful.
You stated that all you want to achieve is to sample we on the rising edge of wclk and keep it stable until the next rising edge. The process below will accomplish this:
store : process(wclk)
begin
if rising_edge(wclk) then
lwe <= we;
end if;
end process;
With this process, lwe will be updated with the value of we upon every rising edge of wclk and it will remain valid for a single clock cycle.
Let me know if this clears things up for you.

Answer 2

Believe it or not, the issue is actually in your testbench. This has to do with how the VHDL simulation model works.
VHDL is usually used for synchronous hardware design -- that means, using flip-flops that sample on the rising edge and set outputs on the falling edge, so that there are no race conditions between reading and writing. But in VHDL this master/slave logic is not actually simulated using opposite clock edges.
Consider a process
process (clock) begin
if rising_edge(clock) then
a <= b;
end if;
end process;
At the start of a simulation timestep, if clock has just risen, the if will execute. Then the assignment a <= b will be executed, and this will not immediately cause an assignment to take place, but schedule the assignment for the end of the timestep.
After all processes have been run, then all scheduled assignments take place. This means that no process will "see" the new value of a until the next timestep.
Time a b Actions
Start of ts 1 '0' '1' a <= '1' is scheduled
End of ts 1 '1' '0' a <= '1' is executed
Start of ts 2 '1' '0' a <= '0' is scheduled
End of ts 2 '0' '1' a <= '0' is executed
So when you look on the waveform viewer, what you will see is a apparently being set on the rising edge of the clock, and following b delayed by one clock cycle; you don't see the intermediate scheduling of assignments that causes this to happen.
Of course, in real life, there is no "end of the timestep", and the actual changing of signal a happens when the slave part of the flip-flop triggers, ie, on the negative edge. (Maybe it would have been less confusing for VHDL to just use the negative edge; but, oh well, this is how it works).
Here are two testbenches for your latch code:
Test bench 1, using rising edges
Test bench 2, using falling edges
In the first, if you look in the waveform viewer you will see exactly what you describe -- lwe appears to be delayed by 1 clock cycle -- but really, the delay is happening in the non-blocking assignment that sets counter -- so when the rising edge happens, we does not actually have its new value yet. And in the second, you see no such delay; lwe is set exactly on the rising edge to the value of we at that time.
For a related topic in Verilog, see Nonblocking Assignments in Verilog Synthesis, Coding Styles That Kill .

Answer 3

The process you have is what you want according to your description, although 'we' should be removed from the sensitivity list. If this doesn't work as you believe it should it is almost certainly a problem with your test bench/simulation. (See Owen's answer.) Specifically you are probably changing the value of 'we' too late, so that the flip-flop latches the previous value instead of the new one.
I'm interested to know what the source of this signal is though, if it's an asynchronous signal that can change at any time you will have to add some logic to protect against metastability.
To answer your second question about latches, it is correct that omitting wclk'event will result in a latch. This process will not do what you want, however, because it will propagate changes to 'we' to 'lwe' during the whole positive half-period of the clock. The short answer to your question is that implementing this type of behavior requires a latch, while the behavior described by the original process requires a flip-flop.