[Libre-silicon-devel] [Librecores Discussion] IEEE754 FPU in nmigen
rudi at asics.ws
Tue Feb 19 09:14:41 CET 2019
On Tue, 2019-02-19 at 07:35 +0000, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> Rudi wrote:
> > Curious: What is the cycle time of the generated code versus
> > native verilog code ?
> hi rudi, nice to see you around, i haven't forgotten you :)
> it's exactly the same, as it's clk-based.
yeah, I'm following the list whenever I find some time :)
What I mean with "cycle-time" is: What clock frequency can the
final design run at ? That will tell you how efficient the
generated versus the hand written code is.
> the layout however with nmigen is... well... it's auto-generated in
> nmigen via yosys, where migen has its own built-in back-end, and goes
> to some lengths to generate verilog that looks reasonably similar to
> the migen it came from: that's gone in nmigen.
> so, in nmigen, each signal that is assigned is separated out into its
> own auto-generated code-section (migen keeps them all together).
> resetting is auto-generated and need not be added
> manually. declaring
> a signal "resetless" may be done if it is definitely known that it
> requires no reset; the value of the reset may be over-ridden at
> declaration time: x = Signal(32, reset=0xf00baa)
> in nmigen, all tests, subexpressions and consequently most
> are done with combinatorial auto-generated wires / registers (of the
> correct / required / calculated / auto-calculated width), with the
> original python line number and file name inserted as a comment next
> to the expression assignment "\$483 = x[1:0] // foo.py:135"
> in nmigen, all if elif elif elif statements are translated to casez
> statements comprising a concatenated sequence of tests (derived from
> the if part of every single if-elif-elif-elif statement), followed by
> case 0b1zzzzzz case 0bz1zzzzzz case 0bzz1zzzzz and so on.
Hmm, perhaps I am not understanding this, BUT, 0b1zzzzzz and 0bz1zzzzzz
and not mutually exclusive.
Perhaps a priority encoder is intended:
Depending what you are going to do with this code, the translation
of if-else to casez is a very bad idea.
Modern synthesis tools know the difference of an if-else and a case
and will try different strategies to optimize it. The documentation
usually gives examples what style to use for which situation. and
will guide you to generate efficient code.
If you intent to tape out a ASIC from that code, I would expect to
see bad are and performace from code generate that way. Wich would
make that ASIC unnecessarily expensive and slow.
> three quirks which are down to python:
> * n/migen works through operator overloading of python syntax.
> assignment of python variables does *not* have an operator over-ride,
> so, annoyingly, an "eq" function had to be provided. "m.d.sync +=
> x.eq(y)" instead of "x = y", because "x = y" would make the *PYTHON*
> variable x equal to y.
> * operator-overloading of the "not", "and" and "or" operators
> unfortunately returns a boolean rather than an object. however the
> "&" and "|" bit-wise operators, when overloaded, *do* actually return
> the objects that are returned from the overload-function.
> consequently, you *have* to do tests as "m.If((modulus[0:31] == 0x0)
> (exponent == -127))" of course including the brackets because & and |
> operators take higher precedence.
> * python slices go from *LSB* on the left to *MSB PLUS ONE* on the
> right, where verilog goes from MSB (inclusive) *down* to LSB
> (inclusive). this so that you can do consecutive slices without
> needing to subtract one: "x = x[y:] + x[:y]" is a barrel-shifter for
> example. note the lack of use of "y-1".
> so... it's... quirky. however, the prevalence and huge adoption of
> python, the advantages of OO, the fact that to generate online
> documentation i can use a single command from a 20-year-old
> tried-and-tested program named "epydoc" (or any of its maaaany
> Not-Invented-Here quotes replacements quotes), these for me *far*
> outweigh the quirks and inconveniences.
> on a separate note: multiply was added yesterday, along with the
> original unit test process that jon dawson developed (which
> hilariously was as python programs). i cut out the use of a c++
> program and replaced it with sfpy (berkeley softfloat 3 python
> so, that's *all* of add, add64, div, div64, mul and mul64, all done,
> all converted to nmigen, and all unit tests passing.
> i've run up to 250,000 add and add64 random-input unit tests.
> the reason for using sfpy is to avoid having to call out to a
> subprocess (nmigen contains its own simulator), and also, sfpy
> supports setting of different overflow modes, which is one of the
> things to add.
> also, now we can add FP16, which is supported by sfpy, *without*
> dependence on a particular feature of a c / c++ compiler (not all c /
> c++ compilers *have* an FP16 type). adding FP16 is literally a
> of adding a few lines in the base class to tell it what to do when
> FPAdd(16) is instantiated.
Rudolf Usselmann, ASICS World Services, LTD, www.asics.ws
Your IP Partner: SAS 12G, SATA-3, USB-3, SD/MMC/SDIO, FEC, etc.
The agony of poor quality remains long
after the joy of low cost has been forgotten
This email message may contain confidential and privileged
information. Any unauthorized use is prohibited. If you
are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender
by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.
More information about the Libre-silicon-devel