I am developing a CPU in VHDL. I am using ModelSim for simulation and testing. In the simulation script I load a program from a binary file to the instruction memory. Now I want to automatically check if the program fits into memory and abort simulation if it doesn't. Since the memory is basically an array of std_logic_vectors, all I would have to do is read the corresponding signal attribute for use in a comparison. My problem is: How do I access a VHDL signal attribute in TCL inside ModelSim?
The closest I have gotten so far is to use the describe command:
describe sim/:tb:uut:imem:mem_array
which prints something like
# Array(0 to 255) [length 256] of
# Array(31 downto 0) [length 32] of
# VHDL standard subtype STD_LOGIC
Now, of course I could parse the length out of there via string operations. But that would not be a very generic solution. Ideally I would like to have something like this:
set mem_size [get_attribute sim/:tb:uut:imem:mem_array'length]
I have searched stackoverflow, googled up and down and searched through the commands in the command reference manual, but I could not find a solution. I am confident there must be a rather easy solution and I just lack the proper wording to successfully search for it. To me, this doesn't look overly specific and I am sure this could come in hand on many occasions when automating design testing. I am using version 10.6.
I would be very grateful if an experienced ModelSim user could help me out.
Disclaimer: I'm not a Tcl expert, so there's probably a more optimized solution out there.
There's a command called examine that you can use to get the value of obejcts.
I created a similar testbench here with a 256 x 32 array, the results were
VSIM> examine -radix hex sim/:tb:uut:imem:mem_array
# {32'hXXXXXXXX} {32'hXXXXXXXX} {32'hXXXXXXXX} {32'hXXXXXXXX} {32'hXXXXXXXX} ...
This is the value of sim/:tb:uut:imem:mem_array at the last simulation step (i.e.,
now).
The command return a list of values for each match (you can use wildcards), so
in our case, it's a list with a single item. You can get the depth by counting
the number of elements it returns:
VSIM> llength [lindex [examine sim/:tb:uut:imem:mem_array] 0]
# 256
You can get the bit width of the first element by using examine -showbase -radix hex,
which will return 32'hFFFFFFFF, where 32'h is the part you want to parse. Wrapping
that into a function would look like
proc get_bit_width { signal } {
set first_element [lindex [lindex [examine -radix hex -showbase $signal] 0] 0]
# Replace everything after 'h, including 'h itself to return only the base
return [regsub "'h.*" $first_element ""]
}
Hope this gives some pointers!
So, I actually found an easy solution. While further studying of the command reference manual brought to light that it is only possible to access a few special signal attributes and length is not one of them, I noticed that ModelSim automatically adds a size object to its object database for the memory array. So I can easily use
set ms [examine sim/:tb:uut:imem:mem_array_size]
to obtain the size and then check if the program fits.
This is just perfect for me, elegant and easy.
Related
Got some issues with Youtube API, it doesnt show åäö in titles. Urltitle script does, after an eggdrop recompile. So any suggestions how to make 2nd script use utf8 or so?
There are two key problems here:
Ensuring that the data from the data source is understood correctly by Tcl.
Ensuring that the correct data known by Tcl is reported to the channel in a way that it can digest.
Hopefully the first is already working; the http package and the various database access packages mostly get that right (except when the data source tells lies, as can happen occasionally with real-world data). You can test this by doing:
set msg ""
foreach char [split $data ""] { # For each UNICODE character...
append msg [format %04x [scan $char %c]]; # The hex code for the char
}
putserv "PRIVMSG $chan :$msg"
For example, this would generate a message like this for data of åäö€:
00e500e400f620ac
If that's working (it's the hard part to solve if it isn't), all you've got to do is ensure that the data actually goes correctly to the channel. This might be as simple as doing this (if the Tcl side of the channel is in binary mode):
putserv "PRIVMSG $chan :[encoding convertto utf-8 $data]"
In theory, the Tcl channel that putserv writes on could do the conversion for you, but getting that part right is tricky when there's unknown code between your code and the actual channel.
It's also possible that the IRC server expects the data in a different encoding such as iso8859-15. There isn't a universal rule there, alas.
I have the following code:
set myfile "the path to my file"
set fsize [file size $myfile]
set fp [open $myfile r]
fconfigure $fp -translation binary
set data [read $fp $fsize]
close $fp
puts $fsize
puts [string bytelength $data]
And it shows that the bytes read are different from the bytes requested. The bytes requested match what the filesystem shows; the actual bytes read are 22% more (requested 29300, got 35832). I tested this on Windows, with Tcl 8.6.
Use string length. Don't use string bytelength. It gives the “wrong” answers, or rather it answers a question you probably don't want to ask.
More Depth
The string bytelength command returns the length in bytes of the data in Tcl's internal almost-UTF-8 encoding. If you're not working with Tcl's C API directly, you really have no sensible use for that value, and C code is actually pretty able to get the value without that command. For ASCII text, the length and the byte-length are the same, but for binary data or text with NULs or characters greater than U+00007F (the Unicode character that is equivalent to ASCII DEL), the values will differ. By contrast, the string length command knows how to handle binary data correctly, and will report the number of bytes in the byte-string that you read in. We plan to deprecate the string bytelength command, as it turns out to be a bug in someone's code almost every time they use it.
(I'm guessing that your input data actually has 6532 bytes outside the range 1–127 in it; the other bytes internally use a two-byte representation in almost-UTF-8. Fortunately, Tcl doesn't actually convert into that format until it needs to, and instead uses a compact array of bytes in this case; you're forcing it by asking for the string bytelength.)
Background Information
The question of “how much memory is actually being used by Tcl to read this data” is quite hard to answer, because Tcl will internally mutate data to hold it in the form that is most efficient for the operations you are applying to it. Because Tcl's internal types are all precisely transparent (i.e., conversions to and from them don't lose information) we deliberately don't talk about them much except from an optimisation perspective; as a programmer, you're supposed to pretend that Tcl has no types other than string of unicode characters.
You can peel the veil back a bit with the tcl::unsupported::representation command (introduced in 8.6). Don't use the types for decisions on what to do in your code, as that is really not something guaranteed by the language, but it does let you see a lot more about what is really going on under the covers. Just remember, the values that you see are not the same as the values that Tcl's implementation thinks about. Thinking about the values that you see (without that magic command) will keep you thinking about things that it is correct to write.
I have the latest TCL build from Active State installed on a desktop and laptop both running Windows 10. I'm new to TCL and a novice developer and my reason for learning TCL is to enhance my value on the F5 platform. I figured a good first step would be to stop the occasional work I do in VBScript and port that to TCL. Learning the language itself is coming along alright, but I'm worried my project isn't viable due to performance. My VBScripts absolutely destroy my TCL scripts in performance. I didn't expect that outcome as my understanding was TCL was so "fast" and that's why it was chosen by F5 for iRules etc.
So the question is, am I doing something wrong? Is the port for Windows just not quite there? Perhaps I misunderstood the way in which TCL is fast and it's not fast for file parsing applications?
My test application is a firewall log parser. Take a log with 6 million hits and find the unique src/dst/port/policy entries and count them; split up into accept and deny. Opening the file and reading the lines is fine, TCL processes 18k lines/second while VBScript does 11k. As soon as I do anything with the data, the tide turns. I need to break the four pieces of data noted above from the line read and put in array. I've "split" the line, done a for-next to read and match each part of the line, that's the slowest. I've done a regexp with subvariables that extracts all four elements in a single line, and that's much faster, but it's twice as slow as doing four regexps with a single variable and then cleaning the excess data from the match away with trims. But even this method is four times slower than VBScript with ad-hoc splits/for-next matching and trims. On my desktop, i get 7k lines/second with TCL and 25k with VBscript.
Then there's the array, I assume because my 3-dimensional array isn't a real array that searching through 3x as many lines is slowing it down. I may try to break up the array so it's looking through a third of the data currently. But the truth is, by the time the script gets to the point where there's a couple hundred entries in the array, it's dropped from processing 7k lines/second to less than 2k. My VBscript drops from about 25k lines to 22k lines. And so I don't see much hope.
I guess what I'm looking for in an answer, for those with TCL experience and general programming experience, is TCL natively slower than VB and other scripts for what I'm doing? Is it the port for Windows that's slowing it down? What kind of applications is TCL "fast" at or good at? If I need to try a different kind of project than reading and manipulating data from files I'm open to that.
edited to add code examples as requested:
while { [gets $infile line] >= 0 } {
some other commands I'm cutting out for the sake of space, they don't contribute to slowness
regexp {srcip=(.*)srcport.*dstip=(.*)dstport=(.*)dstint.*policyid=(.*)dstcount} $line -> srcip dstip dstport policyid
the above was unexpectedly slow. the fasted way to extract data I've found so far
regexp {srcip=(.*)srcport} $line srcip
set srcip [string trim $srcip "cdiloprsty="]
regexp {dstip=(.*)dstport} $line dstip
set dstip [string trim $dstip "cdiloprsty="]
regexp {dstport=(.*)dstint} $line dstport
set dstport [string trim $dstport "cdiloprsty="]
regexp {policyid=(.*)dstcount} $line a policyid
set policyid [string trim $policyid "cdiloprsty="]
Here is the array search that really bogs down after a while:
set start [array startsearch uList]
while {[array anymore uList $start]} {
incr f
#"key" returns the NAME of the association and uList(key) the VALUE associated with name
set key [array nextelement uList $start]
if {$uCheck == $uList($key)} {
##puts "$key CONDITOIN MET"
set flag true
adduList $uCheck $key $flag2
set flag2 false
break
}
}
Your question is still a bit broad in scope.
F5 has published some comment why they choose Tcl and how it is fast for their specific usecases. This is actually a bit different to a log parsing usecase, as they do all the heavy lifting in C-code (via custom commands) and use Tcl mostly as a fast dispatcher and for a bit of flow control. And Tcl is really good at that compared to various other languages.
For things like log parsing, Tcl is often beaten in performance by languages like Python and Perl in simple benchmarks. There are a variety of reasons for that, here are some of them:
Tcl uses a different regexp style (DFA), which are more robust for nasty patterns, but slower for simple patterns.
Tcl has a more abstract I/O layer than for example Python, and usually converts the input to unicode, which has some overhead if you do not disable it (via fconfigure)
Tcl has proper multithreading, instead of a global lock which costs around 10-20% performance for single threaded usecases.
So how to get your code fast(er)?
Try a more specific regular expression, those greedy .* patterns are bad for performance.
Try to use string commands instead of regexp, some string first commands followed by string range could be faster than a regexp for these simple patterns.
Use a different structure for that array, you probably want either a dict or some form of nested list.
Put your code inside a proc, do not put it all in a toplevel script and use local variables instead of globals to make the bytecode faster.
If you want, use one thread for reading lines from file and multiple threads for extracting data, like a typical producer-consumer pattern.
My problem is simple: I'm trying to write a tcl script to use $grofile instead writing every time I need this file name.
So, what I did in TkConsole was:
% set grofile "file.gro"
% mol load gro ${grofile}
and, indeed, I succeeded uploading the file.
In the script I have the same lines, but still have this error:
wrong # args: should be "set varName ?newValue?"
can't read "grofile": no such variable
I tried to solve my problem with
% set grofile [./file.gro]
and I have this error,
invalid command name "./file.gro"
can't read "grofile": no such variable
I tried also with
% set grofile [file ./file.gro r]
and I got the first error, again.
I haven't found any simple way to avoid using the explicit name of the file I want to upload. It seems like you only can use the most trivial, but tedious way:
mol load file.gro
mol addfile file.xtc
and so on and so on...
Can you help me with a brief explanation about why in the TkConsole I can upload the file and use it as a variable while I can not in the tcl script?
Also, if you have where is my mistake, I will appreciate it.
I apologize if it is basic, but I could not find any answer. Thanks.
I add the head of my script:
set grofile "sim.part0001_protein_lipid.gro"
set xtcfile "protein_lipid.xtc"
set intime "0-5ms"
set system "lower"
source view_change_render.tcl
source cg_bonds.tcl
mol load gro $grofile xtc ${system}_${intime}_${xtcfile}
It was solved, thanks for your help.
You may think you've typed the same thing, but you haven't. I'm guessing that your real filename has spaces in it, and that you've not put double-quotes around it. That will confuse set as Tcl's general parser will end up giving set more arguments than it expects. (Tcl's general parser does not know that set only takes one or two arguments, by very long standing policy of the language.)
So you should really do:
set grofile "file.gro"
Don't leave the double quotes out if you have a complicated name.
Also, this won't work:
set grofile [./file.gro]
because […] is used to indicate running something as a command and using the result of that. While ./file.gro is actually a legal command name in Tcl, it's… highly unlikely.
And this won't work:
set grofile [file ./file.gro r]
Because the file command requires a subcommand as a first argument. The word you give is not one of the standard file subcommands, and none of them accept those arguments anyway, which look suitable for open (though that returns a channel handle suitable for use with commands like gets and read).
The TkConsole is actually pretty reasonable as quick-and-dirty terminal emulations go (given that it omits a lot of the complicated cases). The real problem is that you're not being consistently accurate about what you're really typing; that matters hugely in most programming languages, not just Tcl. You need to learn to be really exacting; cut-n-paste when creating a question helps a lot.
So I have been trying to find an answer for this for a bit and could not find the answer on the internet. I need to check to see if an environment variable exists. I thought I had the right code but it keeps returning false.
if { [info exists ::env(USER)] } {
RAT::LogMsg INFO "Found USER"
} else {
RAT::LogMsg INFO "Nope!"
}
Any ideas?
You might want to check what environment variables are actually set; I don't think that USER is one of the guaranteed ones.
RAT::LogMsg INFO "Got these env-vars: [lsort [array names ::env]]"
If puts stdout works in your environment, you can try doing:
parray ::env
(The parray command is a procedure that pretty-prints an array.)
To get the current username reliably, check out the tcl_platform array's user element. That array is generated internally by Tcl (well, with probes to relevant basic OS APIs) instead of by looking at environment variables, and that particular element is always present back at least as far as Tcl 8.4.
RAT::LogMsg INFO "Username is $::tcl_platform(user)"
I've just noticed that the documentation is wrong: it says that the user element comes from USER and/or LOGNAME environment variables. It doesn't, and doesn't in at least 8.5 and 8.6. (And it's definitely my mistake. I forgot to update the code when I fixed this. Ooops!)
You have the right code, test in tclsh:
% if {[info exists ::env(USER)]} {puts "found $::env(USER)"}
found strobel
%
The problem must be in your environment.