1 \chapter[chap:prototype]{Prototype}
2 An important step in this research is the creation of a prototype compiler.
3 Having this prototype allows us to apply the ideas from the previous chapter
4 to actual hardware descriptions and evaluate their usefulness. Having a
5 prototype also helps to find new techniques and test possible
8 Obviously the prototype was not created after all research
9 ideas were formed, but its implementation has been interleaved with the
10 research itself. Also, the prototype described here is the final version, it
11 has gone through a number of design iterations which we will not completely
14 \section[sec:prototype:input]{Input language}
15 When implementing this prototype, the first question to ask is: What
16 (functional) language will we use to describe our hardware? (Note that
17 this does not concern the \emph{implementation language} of the compiler,
18 just the language \emph{translated by} the compiler).
20 Initially, we have two choices:
23 \item Create a new functional language from scratch. This has the
24 advantage of having a language that contains exactly those elements that
25 are convenient for describing hardware and can contain special
26 constructs that allows our hardware descriptions to be more powerful or
28 \item Use an existing language and create a new backend for it. This has
29 the advantage that existing tools can be reused, which will speed up
33 \todo{Sidenote: No EDSL}
35 Considering that we required a prototype which should be working quickly,
36 and that implementing parsers, semantic checkers and especially
37 typcheckers is not exactly the core of this research (but it is lots and
38 lots of work!), using an existing language is the obvious choice. This
39 also has the advantage that a large set of language features is available
40 to experiment with and it is easy to find which features apply well and
41 which don't. A possible second prototype could use a custom language with
42 just the useful features (and possibly extra features that are specific to
43 the domain of hardware description as well).
45 The second choice is which of the many existing languages to use. As
46 mentioned before, the chosen language is Haskell. This choice has not been the
47 result of a thorough comparison of languages, for the simple reason that
48 the requirements on the language were completely unclear at the start of
49 this research. The fact that Haskell is a language with a broad spectrum
50 of features, that it is commonly used in research projects and that the
51 primary compiler, \GHC, provides a high level API to its internals, made
52 Haskell an obvious choice.
54 \section[sec:prototype:output]{Output format}
55 The second important question is: What will be our output format? Since
56 our prototype won't be able to program FPGA's directly, we'll have to have
57 output our hardware in some format that can be later processed and
58 programmed by other tools.
60 Looking at other tools in the industry, the Electronic Design Interchange
61 Format (\small{EDIF}) is commonly used for storing intermediate
62 \emph{netlists} (lists of components and connections between these
63 components) and is commonly the target for \small{VHDL} and Verilog
66 However, \small{EDIF} is not completely tool-independent. It specifies a
67 meta-format, but the hardware components that can be used vary between
68 various tool and hardware vendors, as well as the interpretation of the
69 \small{EDIF} standard. \todo{Is this still true? Reference:
70 http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/80000/74534/p803-li.pdf?key1=74534\&key2=8370537521\&coll=GUIDE\&dl=GUIDE\&CFID=61207158\&CFTOKEN=61908473}
72 This means that when working with \small{EDIF}, our prototype would become
73 technology dependent (\eg only work with \small{FPGA}s of a specific
74 vendor, or even only with specific chips). This limits the applicability
75 of our prototype. Also, the tools we'd like to use for verifying,
76 simulating and draw pretty pictures of our output (like Precision, or
77 QuestaSim) are designed for \small{VHDL} or Verilog input.
79 For these reasons, we will not use \small{EDIF}, but \small{VHDL} as our
80 output language. We choose \VHDL over Verilog simply because we are
81 familiar with \small{VHDL} already. The differences between \small{VHDL}
82 and Verilog are on the higher level, while we will be using \small{VHDL}
83 mainly to write low level, netlist-like descriptions anyway.
85 An added advantage of using VHDL is that we can profit from existing
86 optimizations in VHDL synthesizers. A lot of optimizations are done on the
87 VHDL level by existing tools. These tools have years of experience in this
88 field, so it would not be reasonable to assume we could achieve a similar
89 amount of optimization in our prototype (nor should it be a goal,
90 considering this is just a prototype).
92 Note that we will be using \small{VHDL} as our output language, but will
93 not use its full expressive power. Our output will be limited to using
94 simple, structural descriptions, without any behavioural descriptions
95 (which might not be supported by all tools). This ensures that any tool
96 that works with \VHDL will understand our output (most tools don't support
97 synthesis of more complex \VHDL). This also leaves open the option to
98 switch to \small{EDIF} in the future, with minimal changes to the
101 \section{Prototype design}
102 As suggested above, we will use the Glasgow Haskell Compiler (\small{GHC}) to
103 implement our prototype compiler. To understand the design of the
104 compiler, we will first dive into the \small{GHC} compiler a bit. It's
105 compilation consists of the following steps (slightly simplified):
107 \startuseMPgraphic{ghc-pipeline}
109 save inp, front, desugar, simpl, back, out;
110 newEmptyBox.inp(0,0);
111 newBox.front(btex Fronted etex);
112 newBox.desugar(btex Desugarer etex);
113 newBox.simpl(btex Simplifier etex);
114 newBox.back(btex Backend etex);
115 newEmptyBox.out(0,0);
117 % Space the boxes evenly
118 inp.c - front.c = front.c - desugar.c = desugar.c - simpl.c
119 = simpl.c - back.c = back.c - out.c = (0, 1.5cm);
122 % Draw lines between the boxes. We make these lines "deferred" and give
123 % them a name, so we can use ObjLabel to draw a label beside them.
124 ncline.inp(inp)(front) "name(haskell)";
125 ncline.front(front)(desugar) "name(ast)";
126 ncline.desugar(desugar)(simpl) "name(core)";
127 ncline.simpl(simpl)(back) "name(simplcore)";
128 ncline.back(back)(out) "name(native)";
129 ObjLabel.inp(btex Haskell source etex) "labpathname(haskell)", "labdir(rt)";
130 ObjLabel.front(btex Haskell AST etex) "labpathname(ast)", "labdir(rt)";
131 ObjLabel.desugar(btex Core etex) "labpathname(core)", "labdir(rt)";
132 ObjLabel.simpl(btex Simplified core etex) "labpathname(simplcore)", "labdir(rt)";
133 ObjLabel.back(btex Native code etex) "labpathname(native)", "labdir(rt)";
135 % Draw the objects (and deferred labels)
136 drawObj (inp, front, desugar, simpl, back, out);
138 \placefigure[right]{GHC compiler pipeline}{\useMPgraphic{ghc-pipeline}}
141 This step takes the Haskell source files and parses them into an
142 abstract syntax tree (\small{AST}). This \small{AST} can express the
143 complete Haskell language and is thus a very complex one (in contrast
144 with the Core \small{AST}, later on). All identifiers in this
145 \small{AST} are resolved by the renamer and all types are checked by the
148 \startdesc{Desugaring}
149 This steps takes the full \small{AST} and translates it to the
150 \emph{Core} language. Core is a very small functional language with lazy
151 semantics, that can still express everything Haskell can express. Its
152 simpleness makes Core very suitable for further simplification and
153 translation. Core is the language we will be working with as well.
155 \startdesc{Simplification}
156 Through a number of simplification steps (such as inlining, common
157 subexpression elimination, etc.) the Core program is simplified to make
158 it faster or easier to process further.
161 This step takes the simplified Core program and generates an actual
162 runnable program for it. This is a big and complicated step we will not
163 discuss it any further, since it is not required for our prototype.
166 In this process, there a number of places where we can start our work.
167 Assuming that we don't want to deal with (or modify) parsing, typechecking
168 and other frontend business and that native code isn't really a useful
169 format anymore, we are left with the choice between the full Haskell
170 \small{AST}, or the smaller (simplified) core representation.
172 The advantage of taking the full \small{AST} is that the exact structure
173 of the source program is preserved. We can see exactly what the hardware
174 descriiption looks like and which syntax constructs were used. However,
175 the full \small{AST} is a very complicated datastructure. If we are to
176 handle everything it offers, we will quickly get a big compiler.
178 Using the core representation gives us a much more compact datastructure
179 (a core expression only uses 9 constructors). Note that this does not mean
180 that the core representation itself is smaller, on the contrary. Since the
181 core language has less constructs, a lot of things will take a larger
182 expression to express.
184 However, the fact that the core language is so much smaller, means it is a
185 lot easier to analyze and translate it into something else. For the same
186 reason, \small{GHC} runs its simplifications and optimizations on the core
187 representation as well.
189 However, we will use the normal core representation, not the simplified
190 core. Reasons for this are detailed below. \todo{Ref}
192 The final prototype roughly consists of three steps:
194 \startuseMPgraphic{clash-pipeline}
196 save inp, front, norm, vhdl, out;
197 newEmptyBox.inp(0,0);
198 newBox.front(btex \small{GHC} frontend + desugarer etex);
199 newBox.norm(btex Normalization etex);
200 newBox.vhdl(btex \small{VHDL} generation etex);
201 newEmptyBox.out(0,0);
203 % Space the boxes evenly
204 inp.c - front.c = front.c - norm.c = norm.c - vhdl.c
205 = vhdl.c - out.c = (0, 1.5cm);
208 % Draw lines between the boxes. We make these lines "deferred" and give
209 % them a name, so we can use ObjLabel to draw a label beside them.
210 ncline.inp(inp)(front) "name(haskell)";
211 ncline.front(front)(norm) "name(core)";
212 ncline.norm(norm)(vhdl) "name(normal)";
213 ncline.vhdl(vhdl)(out) "name(vhdl)";
214 ObjLabel.inp(btex Haskell source etex) "labpathname(haskell)", "labdir(rt)";
215 ObjLabel.front(btex Core etex) "labpathname(core)", "labdir(rt)";
216 ObjLabel.norm(btex Normalized core etex) "labpathname(normal)", "labdir(rt)";
217 ObjLabel.vhdl(btex \small{VHDL} description etex) "labpathname(vhdl)", "labdir(rt)";
219 % Draw the objects (and deferred labels)
220 drawObj (inp, front, norm, vhdl, out);
222 \placefigure[right]{Cλash compiler pipeline}{\useMPgraphic{clash-pipeline}}
225 This is exactly the frontend and desugarer from the \small{GHC}
226 pipeline, that translates Haskell sources to a core representation.
228 \startdesc{Normalization}
229 This is a step that transforms the core representation into a normal
230 form. This normal form is still expressed in the core language, but has
231 to adhere to an extra set of constraints. This normal form is less
232 expressive than the full core language (e.g., it can have limited higher
233 order expressions, has a specific structure, etc.), but is also very
234 close to directly describing hardware.
236 \startdesc{\small{VHDL} generation}
237 The last step takes the normal formed core representation and generates
238 \small{VHDL} for it. Since the normal form has a specific, hardware-like
239 structure, this final step is very straightforward.
242 The most interesting step in this process is the normalization step. That
243 is where more complicated functional constructs, which have no direct
244 hardware interpretation, are removed and translated into hardware
245 constructs. This step is described in a lot of detail at
246 \in{chapter}[chap:normalization].
248 \section{The Core language}
249 \defreftxt{core}{the Core language}
250 Most of the prototype deals with handling the program in the Core
251 language. In this section we will show what this language looks like and
254 The Core language is a functional language that describes
255 \emph{expressions}. Every identifier used in Core is called a
256 \emph{binder}, since it is bound to a value somewhere. On the highest
257 level, a Core program is a collection of functions, each of which bind a
258 binder (the function name) to an expression (the function value, which has
261 The Core language itself does not prescribe any program structure, only
262 expression structure. In the \small{GHC} compiler, the Haskell module
263 structure is used for the resulting Core code as well. Since this is not
264 so relevant for understanding the Core language or the Normalization
265 process, we'll only look at the Core expression language here.
267 Each Core expression consists of one of these possible expressions.
269 \startdesc{Variable reference}
270 \defref{variable reference}
274 This is a reference to a binder. It's written down as the
275 name of the binder that is being referred to along with its type. The
276 binder name should of course be bound in a containing scope (including
277 top level scope, so a reference to a top level function is also a
278 variable reference). Additionally, constructors from algebraic datatypes
279 also become variable references.
281 The value of this expression is the value bound to the given binder.
283 Each binder also carries around its type (explicitly shown above), but
284 this is usually not shown in the Core expressions. Only when the type is
285 relevant (when a new binder is introduced, for example) will it be
286 shown. In other cases, the binder is either not relevant, or easily
287 derived from the context of the expression. \todo{Ref sidenote on type
296 This is a literal. Only primitive types are supported, like
297 chars, strings, ints and doubles. The types of these literals are the
298 \quote{primitive} versions, like \lam{Char\#} and \lam{Word\#}, not the
299 normal Haskell versions (but there are builtin conversion functions).
302 \startdesc{Application}
307 This is function application. Each application consists of two
308 parts: The function part and the argument part. Applications are used
309 for normal function \quote{calls}, but also for applying type
310 abstractions and data constructors.
312 The value of an application is the value of the function part, with the
313 first argument binder bound to the argument part.
316 \startdesc{Lambda abstraction}
317 \defref{lambda abstraction}
321 This is the basic lambda abstraction, as it occurs in labmda calculus.
322 It consists of a binder part and a body part. A lambda abstraction
323 creates a function, that can be applied to an argument. The binder is
324 usually a value binder, but it can also be a \emph{type binder} (or
325 \emph{type variable}). The latter case introduces a new polymorphic
326 variable, which can be used in types later on. See
327 \in{section}[sec:prototype:coretypes] for details.
329 Note that the body of a lambda abstraction extends all the way to the
330 end of the expression, or the closing bracket surrounding the lambda. In
331 other words, the lambda abstraction \quote{operator} has the lowest
334 The value of an application is the value of the body part, with the
335 binder bound to the value the entire lambda abstraction is applied to.
338 \startdesc{Non-recursive let expression}
339 \defref{let expression}
341 let bndr = value in body
343 A let expression allows you to bind a binder to some value, while
344 evaluating to some other value (where that binder is in scope). This
345 allows for sharing of subexpressions (you can use a binder twice) and
346 explicit \quote{naming} of arbitrary expressions. Note that the binder
347 is not in scope in the value bound to it, so it's not possible to make
348 recursive definitions with the normal form of the let expression (see
349 the recursive form below).
351 Even though this let expression is an extension on the basic lambda
352 calculus, it is easily translated to a lambda abstraction. The let
353 expression above would then become:
359 This notion might be useful for verifying certain properties on
360 transformations, since a lot of verification work has been done on
361 lambda calculus already.
363 The value of a let expression is the value of the body part, with the
364 binder bound to the value.
367 \startdesc{Recursive let expression}
376 This is the recursive version of the let expression. In \small{GHC}'s
377 Core implementation, non-recursive and recursive lets are not so
378 distinct as we present them here, but this provides a clearer overview.
380 The main difference with the normal let expression is that each of the
381 binders is in scope in each of the values, in addition to the body. This
382 allows for self-recursive or mutually recursive definitions.
384 It should also be possible to express a recursive let using normal
385 lambda calculus, if we use the \emph{least fixed-point operator},
386 \lam{Y}. This falls beyond the scope of this report, since it is not
387 needed for this research.
390 \startdesc{Case expression}
391 \defref{case expression}
393 case scrutinee of bndr
394 DEFAULT -> defaultbody
395 C0 bndr0,0 ... bndr0,m -> body0
397 Cn bndrn,0 ... bndrn,m -> bodyn
402 A case expression is the only way in Core to choose between values. All
403 \hs{if} expressions and pattern matchings from the original Haskell
404 PRogram have been translated to case expressions by the desugarer.
406 A case expression evaluates its scrutinee, which should have an
407 algebraic datatype, into weak head normal form (\small{WHNF}) and
408 (optionally) binds it to \lam{bndr}. It then chooses a body depending on
409 the constructor of its scrutinee. If none of the constructors match, the
410 \lam{DEFAULT} alternative is chosen. A case expression must always be
411 exhaustive, \ie it must cover all possible constructors that the
412 scrutinee can have (if all of them are covered explicitly, the
413 \lam{DEFAULT} alternative can be left out).
415 Since we can only match the top level constructor, there can be no overlap
416 in the alternatives and thus order of alternatives is not relevant (though
417 the \lam{DEFAULT} alternative must appear first for implementation
420 Any arguments to the constructor in the scrutinee are bound to each of the
421 binders after the constructor and are in scope only in the corresponding
424 To support strictness, the scrutinee is always evaluated into
425 \small{WHNF}, even when there is only a \lam{DEFAULT} alternative. This
426 allows aplication of the strict function \lam{f} to the argument \lam{a}
430 f (case a of arg DEFAULT -> arg)
433 According to the \GHC documentation, this is the only use for the extra
434 binder to which the scrutinee is bound. When not using strictness
435 annotations (which is rather pointless in hardware descriptions),
436 \small{GHC} seems to never generate any code making use of this binder.
437 In fact, \GHC has never been observed to generate code using this
438 binder, even when strictness was involved. Nonetheless, the prototype
439 handles this binder as expected.
441 Note that these case statements are less powerful than the full Haskell
442 case statements. In particular, they do not support complex patterns like
443 in Haskell. Only the constructor of an expression can be matched,
444 complex patterns are implemented using multiple nested case expressions.
446 Case statements are also used for unpacking of algebraic datatypes, even
447 when there is only a single constructor. For examples, to add the elements
448 of a tuple, the following Core is generated:
451 sum = λtuple.case tuple of
455 Here, there is only a single alternative (but no \lam{DEFAULT}
456 alternative, since the single alternative is already exhaustive). When
457 it's body is evaluated, the arguments to the tuple constructor \lam{(,)}
458 (\eg, the elements of the tuple) are bound to \lam{a} and \lam{b}.
461 \startdesc{Cast expression}
462 \defref{cast expression}
466 A cast expression allows you to change the type of an expression to an
467 equivalent type. Note that this is not meant to do any actual work, like
468 conversion of data from one format to another, or force a complete type
469 change. Instead, it is meant to change between different representations
470 of the same type, \eg switch between types that are provably equal (but
473 In our hardware descriptions, we typically see casts to change between a
474 Haskell newtype and its contained type, since those are effectively
475 different types (so a cast is needed) with the same representation (but
476 no work is done by the cast).
478 More complex are types that are proven to be equal by the typechecker,
479 but look different at first glance. To ensure that, once the typechecker
480 has proven equality, this information sticks around, explicit casts are
481 added. In our notation we only write the target type, but in reality a
482 cast expressions carries around a \emph{coercion}, which can be seen as a
483 proof of equality. \todo{Example}
485 The value of a cast is the value of its body, unchanged. The type of this
486 value is equal to the target type, not the type of its body.
488 \todo{Move and update this paragraph}
489 Note that this syntax is also used sometimes to indicate that a particular
490 expression has a particular type, even when no cast expression is
491 involved. This is then purely informational, since the only elements that
492 are explicitely typed in the Core language are the binder references and
493 cast expressions, the types of all other elements are determined at
498 The Core language in \small{GHC} allows adding \emph{notes}, which serve
499 as hints to the inliner or add custom (string) annotations to a core
500 expression. These shouldn't be generated normally, so these are not
501 handled in any way in the prototype.
505 \defref{type expression}
509 It is possibly to use a Core type as a Core expression. For the actual
510 types supported by Core, see \in{section}[sec:prototype:coretypes]. This
511 \quote{lifting} of a type into the value domain is done to allow for
512 type abstractions and applications to be handled as normal lambda
513 abstractions and applications above. This means that a type expression
514 in Core can only ever occur in the argument position of an application,
515 and only if the type of the function that is applied to expects a type
516 as the first argument. This happens for all polymorphic functions, for
517 example, the \lam{fst} function:
520 fst :: \forall a. \forall b. (a, b) -> a
521 fst = λtup.case tup of (,) a b -> a
523 fstint :: (Int, Int) -> Int
524 fstint = λa.λb.fst @Int @Int a b
527 The type of \lam{fst} has two universally quantified type variables. When
528 \lam{fst} is applied in \lam{fstint}, it is first applied to two types.
529 (which are substitued for \lam{a} and \lam{b} in the type of \lam{fst}, so
530 the type of \lam{fst} actual type of arguments and result can be found:
531 \lam{fst @Int @Int :: (Int, Int) -> Int}).
534 \subsection[sec:prototype:coretypes]{Core type system}
535 Whereas the expression syntax of Core is very simple, its type system is
536 a bit more complicated. It turns out it is harder to \quote{desugar}
537 Haskell's complex type system into something more simple. Most of the
538 type system is thus very similar to that of Haskell.
540 We will slightly limit our view on Core's type system, since the more
541 complicated parts of it are only meant to support Haskell's (or rather,
542 \GHC's) type extensions, such as existential types, \small{GADT}s, type
543 families and other non-standard Haskell stuff which we don't (plan to)
546 In Core, every expression is typed. The translation to Core happens
547 after the typechecker, so types in Core are always correct as well
548 (though you could of course construct invalidly typed expressions).
550 Any type in core is one of the following:
552 \startdesc{A type variable}
557 This is a reference to a type defined elsewhere. This can either be a
558 polymorphic type (like the latter two \lam{t}'s in \lam{id :: \forall t.
559 t -> t}), or a type constructor (like \lam{Bool} in \lam{not :: Bool ->
560 Bool}). Like in Haskell, polymorphic type variables always
561 start with a lowercase letter, while type constructors always start
562 with an uppercase letter.
564 \todo{How to define (new) type constructors?}
566 A special case of a type constructor is the \emph{function type
567 constructor}, \lam{->}. This is a type constructor taking two arguments
568 (using application below). The function type constructor is commonly
569 written inline, so we write \lam{a -> b} when we really mean \lam{-> a
570 b}, the function type constructor applied to \lam{a} and \lam{b}.
572 Polymorphic type variables can only be defined by a lambda
573 abstraction, see the forall type below.
576 \startdesc{A type application}
581 This applies a some type to another type. This is particularly used to
582 apply type variables (type constructors) to their arguments.
584 As mentioned above, applications of some type constructors have
585 special notation. In particular, these are applications of the
586 \emph{function type constructor} and \emph{tuple type constructors}:
595 \startdesc{The forall type}
597 id :: \forall a. a -> a
599 The forall type introduces polymorphism. It is the only way to
600 introduce new type variables, which are completely unconstrained (Any
601 possible type can be assigned to it). Constraints can be added later
602 using predicate types, see below.
604 A forall type is always (and only) introduced by a type lambda
605 expression. For example, the Core translation of the
611 Here, the type of the binder \lam{x} is \lam{a}, referring to the
612 binder in the topmost lambda.
614 When using a value with a forall type, the actual type
615 used must be applied first. For example haskell expression \hs{id
616 True} (the function \hs{id} appleid to the dataconstructor \hs{True})
617 translates to the following Core:
623 Here, id is first applied to the type to work with. Note that the type
624 then changes from \lam{id :: \forall a. a -> a} to \lam{id @Bool ::
625 Bool -> Bool}. Note that the type variable \lam{a} has been
626 substituted with the actual type.
628 In Haskell, forall types are usually not explicitly specified (The use
629 of a lowercase type variable implicitly introduces a forall type for
630 that variable). In fact, in standard Haskell there is no way to
631 explicitly specify forall types. Through a language extension, the
632 \hs{forall} keyword is available, but still optional for normal forall
633 types (it is needed for \emph{existentially quantified types}, which
634 Cλash does not support).
637 \startdesc{Predicate type}
639 show :: \forall a. Show s ⇒ s → String
642 \todo{Sidenote: type classes?}
644 A predicate type introduces a constraint on a type variable introduced
645 by a forall type (or type lambda). In the example above, the type
646 variable \lam{a} can only contain types that are an \emph{instance} of
647 the \emph{type class} \lam{Show}. \refdef{type class}
649 There are other sorts of predicate types, used for the type families
650 extension, which we will not discuss here.
652 A predicate type is introduced by a lambda abstraction. Unlike with
653 the forall type, this is a value lambda abstraction, that must be
654 applied to a value. We call this value a \emph{dictionary}.
656 Without going into the implementation details, a dictionary can be
657 seen as a lookup table all the methods for a given (single) type class
658 instance. This means that all the dictionaries for the same type class
659 look the same (\eg contain methods with the same names). However,
660 dictionaries for different instances of the same class contain
661 different methods, of course.
663 A dictionary is introduced by \small{GHC} whenever it encounters an
664 instance declaration. This dictionary, as well as the binder
665 introduced by a lambda that introduces a dictionary, have the
666 predicate type as their type. These binders are usually named starting
667 with a \lam{\$}. Usually the name of the type concerned is not
668 reflected in the name of the dictionary, but the name of the type
669 class is. The Haskell expression \hs{show True} thus becomes:
672 show @Bool \$dShow True
676 Using this set of types, all types in basic Haskell can be represented.
678 \todo{Overview of polymorphism with more examples (or move examples
681 \section[sec:prototype:statetype]{State annotations in Haskell}
682 As noted in \in{section}[sec:description:stateann], Cλash needs some
683 way to let the programmer explicitly specify which of a function's
684 arguments and which part of a function's result represent the
686 \fxnote{This entire section on state annotations should be reviewed}
688 Ideal: Type synonyms, since there is no additional code overhead for
689 packing and unpacking. Downside: there is no explicit conversion in Core
690 either, so type synonyms tend to get lost in expressions (they can be
691 preserved in binders, but this makes implementation harder, since that
692 statefulness of a value must be manually tracked).
694 Less ideal: Newtype. Requires explicit packing and unpacking of function
695 arguments. If you don't unpack substates, there is no overhead for
696 (un)packing substates. This will result in many nested State constructors
697 in a nested state type. \eg:
700 State (State Bit, State (State Word, Bit), Word)
703 Alternative: Provide different newtypes for input and output state. This
704 makes the code even more explicit, and typechecking can find even more
705 errors. However, this requires defining two type synomyms for each
706 stateful function instead of just one. \eg:
709 type AccumStateIn = StateIn Bit
710 type AccumStateOut = StateOut Bit
713 This also increases the possibility of having different input and output
714 states. Checking for identical input and output state types is also
715 harder, since each element in the state must be unpacked and compared
718 Alternative: Provide a type for the entire result type of a stateful
719 function, not just the state part. \eg:
722 newtype Result state result = Result (state, result)
725 This makes it easy to say "Any stateful function must return a
726 \type{Result} type, without having to sort out result from state. However,
727 this either requires a second type for input state (similar to
728 \type{StateIn} / \type{StateOut} above), or requires the compiler to
729 select the right argument for input state by looking at types (which works
730 for complex states, but when that state has the same type as an argument,
731 things get ambiguous) or by selecting a fixed (\eg, the last) argument,
732 which might be limiting.
734 \subsubsection{Example}
735 As an example of the used approach, a simple averaging circuit, that lets
736 the accumulation of the inputs be done by a subcomponent.
739 newtype State s = State s
741 type AccumState = State Bit
742 accum :: Word -> AccumState -> (AccumState, Word)
743 accum i (State s) = (State (s + i), s + i)
745 type AvgState = (AccumState, Word)
746 avg :: Word -> AvgState -> (AvgState, Word)
747 avg i (State s) = (State s', o)
750 -- Pass our input through the accumulator, which outputs a sum
751 (accums', sum) = accum i accums
752 -- Increment the count (which will be our new state)
754 -- Compute the average
756 s' = (accums', count')
759 And the normalized, core-like versions:
762 accum i spacked = res
764 s = case spacked of (State s) -> s
772 s = case spacked of (State s) -> s
773 accums = case s of (accums, \_) -> accums
774 count = case s of (\_, count) -> count
775 accumres = accum i accums
776 accums' = case accumres of (accums', \_) -> accums'
777 sum = case accumres of (\_, sum) -> sum
780 s' = (accums', count')
787 As noted above, any component of a function's state that is a substate,
788 \eg passed on as the state of another function, should have no influence
789 on the hardware generated for the calling function. Any state-specific
790 \small{VHDL} for this component can be generated entirely within the called
791 function. So,we can completely leave out substates from any function.
793 From this observation, we might think to remove the substates from a
794 function's states alltogether, and leave only the state components which
795 are actual states of the current function. While doing this would not
796 remove any information needed to generate \small{VHDL} from the function, it would
797 cause the function definition to become invalid (since we won't have any
798 substate to pass to the functions anymore). We could solve the syntactic
799 problems by passing \type{undefined} for state variables, but that would
800 still break the code on the semantic level (\ie, the function would no
801 longer be semantically equivalent to the original input).
803 To keep the function definition correct until the very end of the process,
804 we will not deal with (sub)states until we get to the \small{VHDL} generation.
805 Here, we are translating from Core to \small{VHDL}, and we can simply not generate
806 \small{VHDL} for substates, effectively removing the substate components
809 There are a few important points when ignore substates.
811 First, we have to have some definition of "substate". Since any state
812 argument or return value that represents state must be of the \type{State}
813 type, we can simply look at its type. However, we must be careful to
814 ignore only {\em substates}, and not a function's own state.
816 In the example above, this means we should remove \type{accums'} from
817 \type{s'}, but not throw away \type{s'} entirely. We should, however,
818 remove \type{s'} from the output port of the function, since the state
819 will be handled by a \small{VHDL} procedure within the function.
821 When looking at substates, these can appear in two places: As part of an
822 argument and as part of a return value. As noted above, these substates
823 can only be used in very specific ways.
825 \desc{State variables can appear as an argument.} When generating \small{VHDL}, we
826 completely ignore the argument and generate no input port for it.
828 \desc{State variables can be extracted from other state variables.} When
829 extracting a state variable from another state variable, this always means
830 we're extracting a substate, which we can ignore. So, we simply generate no
831 \small{VHDL} for any extraction operation that has a state variable as a result.
833 \desc{State variables can be passed to functions.} When passing a
834 state variable to a function, this always means we're passing a substate
835 to a subcomponent. The entire argument can simply be ingored in the
838 \desc{State variables can be returned from functions.} When returning a
839 state variable from a function (probably as a part of an algebraic
840 datatype), this always mean we're returning a substate from a
841 subcomponent. The entire state variable should be ignored in the resulting
842 port map. The type binder of the binder that the function call is bound
843 to should not include the state type either.
845 \startdesc{State variables can be inserted into other variables.} When inserting
846 a state variable into another variable (usually by constructing that new
847 variable using its constructor), we can identify two cases:
850 \item The state is inserted into another state variable. In this case,
851 the inserted state is a substate, and can be safely left out of the
852 constructed variable.
853 \item The state is inserted into a non-state variable. This happens when
854 building up the return value of a function, where you put state and
855 retsult variables together in an algebraic type (usually a tuple). In
856 this case, we should leave the state variable out as well, since we
857 don't want it to be included as an output port.
860 So, in both cases, we can simply leave out the state variable from the
861 resulting value. In the latter case, however, we should generate a state
862 proc instead, which assigns the state variable to the input state variable
866 \desc{State variables can appear as (part of) a function result.} When
867 generating \small{VHDL}, we can completely ignore any part of a function result
868 that has a state type. If the entire result is a state type, this will
869 mean the entity will not have an output port. Otherwise, the state
870 elements will be removed from the type of the output port.
873 Now, we know how to handle each use of a state variable separately. If we
874 look at the whole, we can conclude the following:
877 \item A state unpack operation should not generate any \small{VHDL}. The binder
878 to which the unpacked state is bound should still be declared, this signal
879 will become the register and will hold the current state.
880 \item A state pack operation should not generate any \small{VHDL}. The binder th
881 which the packed state is bound should not be declared. The binder that is
882 packed is the signal that will hold the new state.
883 \item Any values of a State type should not be translated to \small{VHDL}. In
884 particular, State elements should be removed from tuples (and other
885 datatypes) and arguments with a state type should not generate ports.
886 \item To make the state actually work, a simple \small{VHDL} proc should be
887 generated. This proc updates the state at every clockcycle, by assigning
888 the new state to the current state. This will be recognized by synthesis
889 tools as a register specification.
893 When applying these rules to the example program (in normal form), we will
894 get the following result. All the parts that don't generate any value are
895 crossed out, leaving some very boring assignments here and there.
899 avg i --spacked-- = res
901 s = --case spacked of (State s) -> s--
902 --accums = case s of (accums, \_) -> accums--
903 count = case s of (--\_,-- count) -> count
904 accumres = accum i --accums--
905 --accums' = case accumres of (accums', \_) -> accums'--
906 sum = case accumres of (--\_,-- sum) -> sum
909 s' = (--accums',-- count')
910 --spacked' = State s'--
911 res = (--spacked',-- o)
914 When we would really leave out the crossed out parts, we get a slightly
915 weird program: There is a variable \type{s} which has no value, and there
916 is a variable \type{s'} that is never used. Together, these two will form
917 the state proc of the function. \type{s} contains the "current" state,
918 \type{s'} is assigned the "next" state. So, at the end of each clock
919 cycle, \type{s'} should be assigned to \type{s}.
921 Note that the definition of \type{s'} is not removed, even though one
922 might think it as having a state type. Since the state type has a single
923 argument constructor \type{State}, some type that should be the resulting
924 state should always be explicitly packed with the State constructor,
925 allowing us to remove the packed version, but still generate \small{VHDL} for the
926 unpacked version (of course with any substates removed).
928 As you can see, the definition of \type{s'} is still present, since it
929 does not have a state type (The State constructor. The \type{accums'} substate has been removed,
930 leaving us just with the state of \type{avg} itself.
931 \subsection{Initial state}
932 How to specify the initial state? Cannot be done inside a hardware
933 function, since the initial state is its own state argument for the first
934 call (unless you add an explicit, synchronous reset port).
936 External init state is natural for simulation.
938 External init state works for hardware generation as well.
940 Implementation issues: state splitting, linking input to output state,
941 checking usage constraints on state variables.
943 \todo{Implementation issues: Separate compilation, simplified core.}
945 % vim: set sw=2 sts=2 expandtab: