\newenvironment{xlist}[1][\rule{0em}{0em}]{%
\begin{list}{}{%
\settowidth{\labelwidth}{#1:}
- \setlength{\labelsep}{0.5cm}
+ \setlength{\labelsep}{0.5em}
\setlength{\leftmargin}{\labelwidth}
\addtolength{\leftmargin}{\labelsep}
+ \addtolength{\leftmargin}{\parindent}
\setlength{\rightmargin}{0pt}
\setlength{\listparindent}{\parindent}
\setlength{\itemsep}{0 ex plus 0.2ex}
\author{\IEEEauthorblockN{Christiaan P.R. Baaij, Matthijs Kooijman, Jan Kuper, Marco E.T. Gerards, Bert Molenkamp, Sabih H. Gerez}
\IEEEauthorblockA{University of Twente, Department of EEMCS\\
P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE, Enschede, The Netherlands\\
-c.p.r.baaij@@utwente.nl, matthijs@@stdin.nl}}
+c.p.r.baaij@@utwente.nl, matthijs@@stdin.nl, j.kuper@@utwente.nl}}
% \and
% \IEEEauthorblockN{Homer Simpson}
% \IEEEauthorblockA{Twentieth Century Fox\\
descriptions started in the early 1980s \cite{Cardelli1981, muFP,DAISY,FHDL},
a time which also saw the birth of the currently popular hardware description
languages such as \VHDL. The merit of using a functional language to describe
-hardware comes from the fact that basic combinatorial circuits are equivalent
-to mathematical functions and that functional languages are very good at
-describing and composing mathematical functions.
+hardware comes from the fact that combinatorial circuits can be directly
+modeled as mathematical functions and that functional languages are very good
+at describing and composing mathematical functions.
In an attempt to decrease the amount of work involved with creating all the
required tooling, such as parsers and type-checkers, many functional hardware
available in the functional hardware description languages that are embedded
in Haskell as a domain specific languages. As far as the authors know, such
extensive support for choice-elements is new in the domain of functional
-hardware description language. As the hardware descriptions are plain Haskell
-functions, these descriptions can be compiled for simulation using using the
-optimizing Haskell compiler \GHC.
+hardware description languages. As the hardware descriptions are plain Haskell
+functions, these descriptions can be compiled for simulation using an
+optimizing Haskell compiler such as the Glasgow Haskell Compiler (\GHC).
Where descriptions in a conventional hardware description language have an
explicit clock for the purpose state and synchronicity, the clock is implied
-in this research. The functions describe the behavior of the hardware between
+in this research. A developer describes the behavior of the hardware between
clock cycles, as such, only synchronous systems can be described. Many
-functional hardware description models signals as a stream of all values over
+functional hardware description model signals as a stream of all values over
time; state is then modeled as a delay on this stream of values. The approach
taken in this research is to make the current state of a circuit part of the
input of the function and the updated state part of the output.
netlist. This research also features a prototype translator called \CLaSH\
(pronounced: clash), which converts the Haskell code to equivalently behaving
synthesizable \VHDL\ code, ready to be converted to an actual netlist format
-by an optimizing \VHDL\ synthesis tools.
+by an (optimizing) \VHDL\ synthesis tool.
\section{Hardware description in Haskell}
\subsection{Function application}
The basic syntactic elements of a functional program are functions
and function application. These have a single obvious translation to a
- netlist: every function becomes a component, every function argument is an
- input port and the result value is of a function is an output port. This
- output port can have a complex type (such as a tuple), so having just a
- single output port does not create a limitation. Each function application
- in turn becomes a component instantiation. Here, the result of each
- argument expression is assigned to a signal, which is mapped to the
- corresponding input port. The output port of the function is also mapped
- to a signal, which is used as the result of the application itself.
+ netlist format:
+ \begin{inparaenum}
+ \item every function is translated to a component,
+ \item every function argument is translated to an input port,
+ \item the result value of a function is translated to an output port,
+ and
+ \item function applications are translated to component instantiations.
+ \end{inparaenum}
+ The output port can have a complex type (such as a tuple), so having just
+ a single output port does not pose any limitation. The arguments of a
+ function applications are assigned to a signal, which are then mapped to
+ the corresponding input ports of the component. The output port of the
+ function is also mapped to a signal, which is used as the result of the
+ application itself.
Since every top level function generates its own component, the
- hierarchy of function calls is reflected in the final netlist aswell,
+ hierarchy of function calls is reflected in the final netlist,% aswell,
creating a hierarchical description of the hardware. This separation in
different components makes the resulting \VHDL\ output easier to read and
debug.
As an example we can see the netlist of the |mac| function in
\Cref{img:mac-comb}; the |mac| function applies both the |mul| and |add|
function to calculate $a * b + c$:
+
\begin{code}
mac a b c = add (mul a b) c
\end{code}
+
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\includegraphics{mac}}
\caption{Combinatorial Multiply-Accumulate}
\label{img:mac-comb}
\end{figure}
+
The result of using a complex input type can be seen in
\cref{img:mac-comb-nocurry} where the |mac| function now uses a single
input tuple for the |a|, |b|, and |c| arguments:
+
\begin{code}
mac (a, b, c) = add (mul a b) c
\end{code}
+
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\includegraphics{mac-nocurry}}
\caption{Combinatorial Multiply-Accumulate (complex input)}
\label{img:mac-comb-nocurry}
\end{figure}
- \subsection{Choices}
- Although describing components and connections allows describing a
- lot of hardware designs already, there is an obvious thing missing:
- choice. We need some way to be able to choose between values based
- on another value. In Haskell, choice is achieved by \hs{case}
- expressions, \hs{if} expressions, pattern matching and guards.
-
- The easiest of these are of course case expressions (and \hs{if}
- expressions, which can be very directly translated to \hs{case}
- expressions). A \hs{case} expression can in turn simply be
- translated to a conditional assignment in \VHDL, where the
- conditions use equality comparisons against the constructors in the
- \hs{case} expressions.
-
- A slightly more complex (but very powerful) form of choice is
- pattern matching. A function can be defined in multiple clauses,
- where each clause specifies a pattern. When the arguments match the
- pattern, the corresponding clause will be used.
-
- A pattern match (with optional guards) can also be implemented using
- conditional assignments in \VHDL, where the condition is the logical
- and of comparison results of each part of the pattern as well as the
- guard.
-
- Contrived example that sums two values when they are equal or
- non-equal (depending on the predicate given) and returns 0
- otherwise. This shows three implementations, one using and if
- expression, one using only case expressions and one using pattern
- matching and guards.
-
+ \subsection{Choice}
+ In Haskell, choice can be achieved by a large set of language constructs,
+ consisting of: \hs{case} constructs, \hs{if-then-else} constructs,
+ pattern matching, and guards. The easiest of these are the \hs{case}
+ constructs (\hs{if} expressions can be very directly translated to
+ \hs{case} expressions). A \hs{case} construct is translated to a
+ multiplexer, where the control value is linked to the selection port and
+ the output of each case is linked to the corresponding input port on the
+ multiplexer.
+ % A \hs{case} expression can in turn simply be translated to a conditional
+ % assignment in \VHDL, where the conditions use equality comparisons
+ % against the constructors in the \hs{case} expressions.
+ We can see two versions of a contrived example below, the first
+ using a \hs{case} construct and the other using a \hs{if-then-else}
+ constructs, in the code below. The example sums two values when they are
+ equal or non-equal (depending on the predicate given) and returns 0
+ otherwise. Both versions of the example roughly correspond to the same
+ netlist, which is depicted in \Cref{img:choice}.
+
\begin{code}
- sumif pred a b = if pred == Eq && a == b ||
- pred == Neq && a != b
- then a + b
- else 0
-
sumif pred a b = case pred of
Eq -> case a == b of
True -> a + b
Neq -> case a != b of
True -> a + b
False -> 0
-
- sumif Eq a b | a == b = a + b
- sumif Neq a b | a != b = a + b
- sumif _ _ _ = 0
\end{code}
- \begin{figure}
- \centerline{\includegraphics{choice-ifthenelse}}
- \caption{Choice - \emph{if-then-else}}
- \label{img:choice}
- \end{figure}
+ \begin{code}
+ sumif pred a b =
+ if pred == Eq then
+ if a == b then a + b else 0
+ else
+ if a != b then a + b else 0
+ \end{code}
\begin{figure}
\centerline{\includegraphics{choice-case}}
- \caption{Choice - \emph{case-statement / pattern matching}}
+ \caption{Choice - sumif}
\label{img:choice}
\end{figure}
+ A slightly more complex (but very powerful) form of choice is pattern
+ matching. A function can be defined in multiple clauses, where each clause
+ specifies a pattern. When the arguments match the pattern, the
+ corresponding clause will be used. Expressions can also contain guards,
+ where the expression is only executed if the guard evaluates to true. Like
+ \hs{if-then-else} constructs, pattern matching and guards have a
+ (straightforward) translation to \hs{case} constructs and can as such be
+ mapped to multiplexers. A third version of the earlier example, using both
+ pattern matching and guards, can be seen below. The version using pattern
+ matching and guards also has roughly the same netlist representation
+ (\Cref{img:choice}) as the earlier two versions of the example.
+
+ \begin{code}
+ sumif Eq a b | a == b = a + b
+ sumif Neq a b | a != b = a + b
+ sumif _ _ _ = 0
+ \end{code}
+
+ % \begin{figure}
+ % \centerline{\includegraphics{choice-ifthenelse}}
+ % \caption{Choice - \emph{if-then-else}}
+ % \label{img:choice}
+ % \end{figure}
+
\subsection{Types}
- Translation of two most basic functional concepts has been
- discussed: function application and choice. Before looking further
- into less obvious concepts like higher-order expressions and
- polymorphism, the possible types that can be used in hardware
- descriptions will be discussed.
-
- Some way is needed to translate every value used to its hardware
- equivalents. In particular, this means a hardware equivalent for
- every \emph{type} used in a hardware description is needed.
-
- The following types are \emph{built-in}, meaning that their hardware
- translation is fixed into the \CLaSH\ compiler. A designer can also
- define his own types, which will be translated into hardware types
- using translation rules that are discussed later on.
-
- \subsection{Built-in types}
+ Haskell is a statically-typed language, meaning that the type of a
+ variable or function is determined at compile-time. Not all of Haskell's
+ typing constructs have a clear translation to hardware, as such this
+ section will only deal with the types that do have a clear correspondence
+ to hardware. The translatable types are divided into two categories:
+ \emph{built-in} types and \emph{user-defined} types. Built-in types are
+ those types for which a direct translation is defined within the \CLaSH\
+ compiler; the term user-defined types should not require any further
+ elaboration. The translatable types are also inferable by the compiler,
+ meaning that a developer does not have to annotate every function with a
+ type signature.
+
+ % Translation of two most basic functional concepts has been
+ % discussed: function application and choice. Before looking further
+ % into less obvious concepts like higher-order expressions and
+ % polymorphism, the possible types that can be used in hardware
+ % descriptions will be discussed.
+ %
+ % Some way is needed to translate every value used to its hardware
+ % equivalents. In particular, this means a hardware equivalent for
+ % every \emph{type} used in a hardware description is needed.
+ %
+ % The following types are \emph{built-in}, meaning that their hardware
+ % translation is fixed into the \CLaSH\ compiler. A designer can also
+ % define his own types, which will be translated into hardware types
+ % using translation rules that are discussed later on.
+
+ \subsubsection{Built-in types}
+ The following types have direct translation defined within the \CLaSH\
+ compiler:
\begin{xlist}
- \item[\hs{Bit}]
+ \item[\bf{Bit}]
This is the most basic type available. It can have two values:
- \hs{Low} and \hs{High}. It is mapped directly onto the
- \texttt{std\_logic} \VHDL\ type.
- \item[\hs{Bool}]
+ \hs{Low} and \hs{High}.
+ % It is mapped directly onto the \texttt{std\_logic} \VHDL\ type.
+ \item[\bf{Bool}]
This is a basic logic type. It can have two values: \hs{True}
- and \hs{False}. It is translated to \texttt{std\_logic} exactly
- like the \hs{Bit} type (where a value of \hs{True} corresponds
- to a value of \hs{High}). Supporting the Bool type is
- particularly useful to support \hs{if ... then ... else ...}
- expressions, which always have a \hs{Bool} value for the
- condition.
- \item[\hs{SizedWord}, \hs{SizedInt}]
+ and \hs{False}.
+ % It is translated to \texttt{std\_logic} exactly like the \hs{Bit}
+ % type (where a value of \hs{True} corresponds to a value of
+ % \hs{High}).
+ Supporting the Bool type is required in order to support the
+ \hs{if-then-else} construct, which requires a \hs{Bool} value for
+ the condition.
+ \item[\bf{SizedWord}, \bf{SizedInt}]
These are types to represent integers. A \hs{SizedWord} is unsigned,
- while a \hs{SizedInt} is signed. These types are parametrized by a
- length type, so you can define an unsigned word of 32 bits wide as
- follows:
-
- \begin{code}
- type Word32 = SizedWord D32
- \end{code}
-
- Here, a type synonym \hs{Word32} is defined that is equal to the
- \hs{SizedWord} type constructor applied to the type \hs{D32}. \hs{D32}
- is the \emph{type level representation} of the decimal number 32,
- making the \hs{Word32} type a 32-bit unsigned word. These types are
- translated to the \VHDL\ \texttt{unsigned} and \texttt{signed}
- respectively.
- \item[\hs{Vector}]
- This is a vector type, that can contain elements of any other type and
+ while a \hs{SizedInt} is signed. Both are parametrizable in their
+ size.
+ % , so you can define an unsigned word of 32 bits wide as follows:
+
+ % \begin{code}
+ % type Word32 = SizedWord D32
+ % \end{code}
+
+ % Here, a type synonym \hs{Word32} is defined that is equal to the
+ % \hs{SizedWord} type constructor applied to the type \hs{D32}.
+ % \hs{D32} is the \emph{type level representation} of the decimal
+ % number 32, making the \hs{Word32} type a 32-bit unsigned word. These
+ % types are translated to the \VHDL\ \texttt{unsigned} and
+ % \texttt{signed} respectively.
+ \item[\bf{Vector}]
+ This is a vector type that can contain elements of any other type and
has a fixed length. The \hs{Vector} type constructor takes two type
arguments: the length of the vector and the type of the elements
- contained in it. The state type of an 8 element register bank would
- then for example be:
-
- \begin{code}
- type RegisterState = Vector D8 Word32
- \end{code}
-
- Here, a type synonym \hs{RegisterState} is defined that is equal to
- the \hs{Vector} type constructor applied to the types \hs{D8} (The
- type level representation of the decimal number 8) and \hs{Word32}
- (The 32 bit word type as defined above). In other words, the
- \hs{RegisterState} type is a vector of 8 32-bit words. A fixed size
- vector is translated to a \VHDL\ array type.
- \item[\hs{RangedWord}]
+ contained in it. The short-hand notation used for the vector type in
+ the rest of paper is: \hs{[a|n]}. Where the \hs{a} is the element
+ type, and \hs{n} is the length of the vector.
+ % The state type of an 8 element register bank would then for example
+ % be:
+
+ % \begin{code}
+ % type RegisterState = Vector D8 Word32
+ % \end{code}
+
+ % Here, a type synonym \hs{RegisterState} is defined that is equal to
+ % the \hs{Vector} type constructor applied to the types \hs{D8} (The
+ % type level representation of the decimal number 8) and \hs{Word32}
+ % (The 32 bit word type as defined above). In other words, the
+ % \hs{RegisterState} type is a vector of 8 32-bit words. A fixed size
+ % vector is translated to a \VHDL\ array type.
+ \item[\bf{Index}]
This is another type to describe integers, but unlike the previous
two it has no specific bit-width, but an upper bound. This means that
its range is not limited to powers of two, but can be any number.
- A \hs{RangedWord} only has an upper bound, its lower bound is
- implicitly zero. The main purpose of the \hs{RangedWord} type is to be
+ An \hs{Index} only has an upper bound, its lower bound is
+ implicitly zero. The main purpose of the \hs{Index} type is to be
used as an index to a \hs{Vector}.
- \comment{TODO: Perhaps remove this example?} To define an index for
- the 8 element vector above, we would do:
+ % \comment{TODO: Perhaps remove this example?} To define an index for
+ % the 8 element vector above, we would do:
- \begin{code}
- type RegisterIndex = RangedWord D7
- \end{code}
+ % \begin{code}
+ % type RegisterIndex = RangedWord D7
+ % \end{code}
- Here, a type synonym \hs{RegisterIndex} is defined that is equal to
- the \hs{RangedWord} type constructor applied to the type \hs{D7}. In
- other words, this defines an unsigned word with values from
- 0 to 7 (inclusive). This word can be be used to index the
- 8 element vector \hs{RegisterState} above. This type is translated to
- the \texttt{unsigned} \VHDL type.
+ % Here, a type synonym \hs{RegisterIndex} is defined that is equal to
+ % the \hs{RangedWord} type constructor applied to the type \hs{D7}. In
+ % other words, this defines an unsigned word with values from
+ % 0 to 7 (inclusive). This word can be be used to index the
+ % 8 element vector \hs{RegisterState} above. This type is translated
+ % to the \texttt{unsigned} \VHDL type.
\end{xlist}
- \subsection{User-defined types}
+ \subsubsection{User-defined types}
There are three ways to define new types in Haskell: algebraic
data-types with the \hs{data} keyword, type synonyms with the \hs{type}
- keyword and type renamings with the \hs{newtype} keyword. \GHC\
- offers a few more advanced ways to introduce types (type families,
- existential typing, {\small{GADT}}s, etc.) which are not standard
- Haskell. These are not currently supported.
+ keyword and datatype renaming constructs with the \hs{newtype} keyword.
+ \GHC\ offers a few more advanced ways to introduce types (type families,
+ existential typing, {\small{GADT}}s, etc.) which are not standard Haskell.
+ As it is currently unclear how these advanced type constructs correspond
+ with hardware, they are for now unsupported by the \CLaSH\ compiler
Only an algebraic datatype declaration actually introduces a
- completely new type, for which we provide the \VHDL\ translation
- below. Type synonyms and renamings only define new names for
- existing types (where synonyms are completely interchangeable and
- renamings need explicit conversion). Therefore, these do not need
- any particular \VHDL\ translation, a synonym or renamed type will
- just use the same representation as the original type. The
- distinction between a renaming and a synonym does no longer matter
- in hardware and can be disregarded in the generated \VHDL.
-
- For algebraic types, we can make the following distinction:
+ completely new type. Type synonyms and renaming constructs only define new
+ names for existing types, where synonyms are completely interchangeable
+ and renaming constructs need explicit conversions. Therefore, these do not
+ need any particular translation, a synonym or renamed type will just use
+ the same representation as the original type. For algebraic types, we can
+ make the following distinctions:
\begin{xlist}
\item[\bf{Single constructor}]
Algebraic datatypes with a single constructor with one or more
fields, are essentially a way to pack a few values together in a
- record-like structure. An example of such a type is the following pair
- of integers:
-
-\begin{code}
-data IntPair = IntPair Int Int
-\end{code}
-
- Haskell's builtin tuple types are also defined as single
- constructor algebraic types and are translated according to this
- rule by the \CLaSH\ compiler. These types are translated to \VHDL\
- record types, with one field for every field in the constructor.
+ record-like structure. Haskell's built-in tuple types are also defined
+ as single constructor algebraic types An example of a single
+ constructor type is the following pair of integers:
+ \begin{code}
+ data IntPair = IntPair Int Int
+ \end{code}
+ % These types are translated to \VHDL\ record types, with one field
+ % for every field in the constructor.
\item[\bf{No fields}]
Algebraic datatypes with multiple constructors, but without any
fields are essentially a way to get an enumeration-like type
containing alternatives. Note that Haskell's \hs{Bool} type is also
defined as an enumeration type, but we have a fixed translation for
- that. These types are translated to \VHDL\ enumerations, with one
- value for each constructor. This allows references to these
- constructors to be translated to the corresponding enumeration value.
+ that. An example of such an enum type is the type that represents the
+ colors in a traffic light:
+ \begin{code}
+ data TrafficLight = Red | Orange | Green
+ \end{code}
+ % These types are translated to \VHDL\ enumerations, with one
+ % value for each constructor. This allows references to these
+ % constructors to be translated to the corresponding enumeration
+ % value.
\item[\bf{Multiple constructors with fields}]
Algebraic datatypes with multiple constructors, where at least
one of these constructors has one or more fields are not
currently supported.
\end{xlist}
+ \subsection{Polymorphism}
+ A powerful construct in most functional languages is polymorphism, it
+ allows a function to handle values of different data types in a uniform
+ way. Haskell supports \emph{parametric polymorphism}~\cite{polymorphism},
+ meaning functions can be written without mention of any specific type and
+ can be used transparently with any number of new types.
+
+ As an example of a parametric polymorphic function, consider the type of
+ the following \hs{append} function, which appends an element to a vector:
+ \begin{code}
+ append :: [a|n] -> a -> [a|n + 1]
+ \end{code}
+
+ This type is parameterized by \hs{a}, which can contain any type at
+ all. This means that \hs{append} can append an element to a vector,
+ regardless of the type of the elements in the list (as long as the type of
+ the value to be added is of the same type as the values in the vector).
+ This kind of polymorphism is extremely useful in hardware designs to make
+ operations work on a vector without knowing exactly what elements are
+ inside, routing signals without knowing exactly what kinds of signals
+ these are, or working with a vector without knowing exactly how long it
+ is. Polymorphism also plays an important role in most higher order
+ functions, as we will see in the next section.
+
+ Another type of polymorphism is \emph{ad-hoc
+ polymorphism}~\cite{polymorphism}, which refers to polymorphic
+ functions which can be applied to arguments of different types, but which
+ behave differently depending on the type of the argument to which they are
+ applied. In Haskell, ad-hoc polymorphism is achieved through the use of
+ type classes, where a class definition provides the general interface of a
+ function, and class instances define the functionality for the specific
+ types. An example of such a type class is the \hs{Num} class, which
+ contains all of Haskell's numerical operations. A developer can make use
+ of this ad-hoc polymorphism by adding a constraint to a parametrically
+ polymorphic type variable. Such a constraint indicates that the type
+ variable can only be instantiated to a type whose members supports the
+ overloaded functions associated with the type class.
+
+ As an example we will take a look at type signature of the function
+ \hs{sum}, which sums the values in a vector:
+ \begin{code}
+ sum :: Num a => [a|n] -> a
+ \end{code}
+
+ This type is again parameterized by \hs{a}, but it can only contain
+ types that are \emph{instances} of the \emph{type class} \hs{Num}, so that
+ we know that the addition (+) operator is defined for that type.
+ \CLaSH's built-in numerical types are also instances of the \hs{Num}
+ class, so we can use the addition operator on \hs{SizedWords} as
+ well as on \hs{SizedInts}.
+
+ In \CLaSH, parametric polymorphism is completely supported. Any function
+ defined can have any number of unconstrained type parameters. The \CLaSH\
+ compiler will infer the type of every such argument depending on how the
+ function is applied. There is one exception to this: The top level
+ function that is translated, can not have any polymorphic arguments (as
+ they are never applied, so there is no way to find out the actual types
+ for the type parameters).
+
+ \CLaSH\ does not support user-defined type classes, but does use some
+ of the built-in type classes for its built-in function, such as: \hs{Num}
+ for numerical operations, \hs{Eq} for the equality operators, and
+ \hs{Ord} for the comparison/order operators.
+
+ \subsection{Higher-order functions \& values}
+ Another powerful abstraction mechanism in functional languages, is
+ the concept of \emph{higher-order functions}, or \emph{functions as
+ a first class value}. This allows a function to be treated as a
+ value and be passed around, even as the argument of another
+ function. The following example should clarify this concept:
+
+ \begin{code}
+ negVector xs = map not xs
+ \end{code}
+
+ The code above defines a function \hs{negVector}, which takes a vector of
+ booleans, and returns a vector where all the values are negated. It
+ achieves this by calling the \hs{map} function, and passing it
+ \emph{another function}, boolean negation, and the vector of booleans,
+ \hs{xs}. The \hs{map} function applies the negation function to all the
+ elements in the vector.
+
+ The \hs{map} function is called a higher-order function, since it takes
+ another function as an argument. Also note that \hs{map} is again a
+ parametric polymorphic function: It does not pose any constraints on the
+ type of the vector elements, other than that it must be the same type as
+ the input type of the function passed to \hs{map}. The element type of the
+ resulting vector is equal to the return type of the function passed, which
+ need not necessarily be the same as the element type of the input vector.
+ All of these characteristics can readily be inferred from the type
+ signature belonging to \hs{map}:
+
+ \begin{code}
+ map :: (a -> b) -> [a|n] -> [b|n]
+ \end{code}
+
+ As an example of a common hardware design where the use of higher-order
+ functions leads to a very natural description is a FIR filter, which is
+ basically the dot-product of two vectors:
+
+ \begin{equation}
+ y_t = \sum\nolimits_{i = 0}^{n - 1} {x_{t - i} \cdot h_i }
+ \end{equation}
+
+ A FIR filter multiplies fixed constants ($h$) with the current
+ and a few previous input samples ($x$). Each of these multiplications
+ are summed, to produce the result at time $t$. The equation of a FIR
+ filter is indeed equivalent to the equation of the dot-product, which is
+ shown below:
+
+ \begin{equation}
+ \mathbf{x}\bullet\mathbf{y} = \sum\nolimits_{i = 0}^{n - 1} {x_i \cdot y_i }
+ \end{equation}
+
+ We can easily and directly implement the equation for the dot-product
+ using higher-order functions:
+
+ \begin{code}
+ xs *+* ys = foldl1 (+) (zipWith (*) xs hs)
+ \end{code}
+
+ The \hs{zipWith} function is very similar to the \hs{map} function: It
+ takes a function, two vectors, and then applies the function to each of
+ the elements in the two vectors pairwise (\emph{e.g.}, \hs{zipWith (*) [1,
+ 2] [3, 4]} becomes \hs{[1 * 3, 2 * 4]} $\equiv$ \hs{[3,8]}).
+
+ The \hs{foldl1} function takes a function, a single vector, and applies
+ the function to the first two elements of the vector. It then applies the
+ function to the result of the first application and the next element from
+ the vector. This continues until the end of the vector is reached. The
+ result of the \hs{foldl1} function is the result of the last application.
+ As you can see, the \hs{zipWith (*)} function is just pairwise
+ multiplication and the \hs{foldl1 (+)} function is just summation.
+
+ So far, only functions have been used as higher-order values. In
+ Haskell, there are two more ways to obtain a function-typed value:
+ partial application and lambda abstraction. Partial application
+ means that a function that takes multiple arguments can be applied
+ to a single argument, and the result will again be a function (but
+ that takes one argument less). As an example, consider the following
+ expression, that adds one to every element of a vector:
+
+ \begin{code}
+ map ((+) 1) xs
+ \end{code}
+
+ Here, the expression \hs{(+) 1} is the partial application of the
+ plus operator to the value \hs{1}, which is again a function that
+ adds one to its argument. A lambda expression allows one to introduce an
+ anonymous function in any expression. Consider the following expression,
+ which again adds one to every element of a vector:
+
+ \begin{code}
+ map (\x -> x + 1) xs
+ \end{code}
+
+ Finally, higher order arguments are not limited to just built-in
+ functions, but any function defined in \CLaSH\ can have function
+ arguments. This allows the hardware designer to use a powerful
+ abstraction mechanism in his designs and have an optimal amount of
+ code reuse.
+
+ \comment{TODO: Describe ALU example (no code)}
+
\subsection{State}
A very important concept in hardware it the concept of state. In a
stateful design, the outputs depend on the history of the inputs, or the
\item when the function is called, it should not have observable
side-effects.
\end{inparaenum}
- This purity property is important for functional languages, since it
- enables all kinds of mathematical reasoning that could not be guaranteed
- correct for impure functions. Pure functions are as such a perfect match
- for a combinatorial circuit, where the output solely depends on the
- inputs. When a circuit has state however, it can no longer be simply
- described by a pure function. Simply removing the purity property is not a
- valid option, as the language would then lose many of it mathematical
- properties. In an effort to include the concept of state in pure
+ % This purity property is important for functional languages, since it
+ % enables all kinds of mathematical reasoning that could not be guaranteed
+ % correct for impure functions.
+ Pure functions are as such a perfect match or a combinatorial circuit,
+ where the output solely depends on the inputs. When a circuit has state
+ however, it can no longer be simply described by a pure function.
+ % Simply removing the purity property is not a valid option, as the
+ % language would then lose many of it mathematical properties.
+ In an effort to include the concept of state in pure
functions, the current value of the state is made an argument of the
- function; the updated state becomes part of the result.
+ function; the updated state becomes part of the result. In this sense the
+ descriptions made in \CLaSH are the describing the combinatorial parts of
+ a mealy machine.
+
+ A simple example is adding an accumulator register to the earlier
+ multiply-accumulate circuit, of which the resulting netlist can be seen in
+ \Cref{img:mac-state}:
+
+ \begin{code}
+ macS (State c) a b = (State c', outp)
+ where
+ outp = mac a b c
+ c' = outp
+ \end{code}
+
+ \begin{figure}
+ \centerline{\includegraphics{mac-state}}
+ \caption{Stateful Multiply-Accumulate}
+ \label{img:mac-state}
+ \end{figure}
+
+ The \hs{State} keyword indicates which arguments are part of the current
+ state, and what part of the output is part of the updated state. This
+ aspect will also reflected in the type signature of the function.
+ Abstracting the state of a circuit in this way makes it very explicit:
+ which variables are part of the state is completely determined by the
+ type signature. This approach to state is well suited to be used in
+ combination with the existing code and language features, such as all the
+ choice constructs, as state values are just normal values.
+
+ We can simulate stateful descriptions using the recursive \hs{run}
+ function:
- A simple example is the description of an accumulator circuit:
\begin{code}
- acc :: Word -> State Word -> (State Word, Word)
- acc inp (State s) = (State s', outp)
+ run f s (i:inps) = o : (run f s' inps)
where
- outp = s + inp
- s' = outp
+ (s', o) = f s i
\end{code}
- This approach makes the state of a function very explicit: which variables
- are part of the state is completely determined by the type signature. This
- approach to state is well suited to be used in combination with the
- existing code and language features, such as all the choice constructs, as
- state values are just normal values.
+
+ The \hs{run} function maps a list of inputs over the function that a
+ developer wants to simulate, passing the state to each new iteration. Each
+ value in the input list corresponds to exactly one cycle of the (implicit)
+ clock. The result of the simulation is a list of outputs for every clock
+ cycle. As both the \hs{run} function and the hardware description are
+ plain hardware, the complete simulation can be compiled by an optimizing
+ Haskell compiler.
+
\section{\CLaSH\ prototype}
foo\par bar
+\section{Use cases}
+Returning to the example of the FIR filter, we will slightly change the
+equation belong to it, so as to make the translation to code more obvious.
+What we will do is change the definition of the vector of input samples.
+So, instead of having the input sample received at time
+$t$ stored in $x_t$, $x_0$ now always stores the current sample, and $x_i$
+stores the $ith$ previous sample. This changes the equation to the
+following (Note that this is completely equivalent to the original
+equation, just with a different definition of $x$ that will better suit
+the the transformation to code):
+
+\begin{equation}
+y_t = \sum\nolimits_{i = 0}^{n - 1} {x_i \cdot h_i }
+\end{equation}
+
+Consider that the vector \hs{hs} contains the FIR coefficients and the
+vector \hs{xs} contains the current input sample in front and older
+samples behind. The function that does this shifting of the input samples
+is shown below:
+
+\begin{code}
+x >> xs = x +> tail xs
+\end{code}
+
+Where the \hs{tail} function returns all but the first element of a
+vector, and the concatenate operator ($\succ$) adds a new element to the
+left of a vector. The complete definition of the FIR filter then becomes:
+
+\begin{code}
+fir (State (xs,hs)) x = (State (x >> xs,hs), xs *+* hs)
+\end{code}
+
+The resulting netlist of a 4-taps FIR filter based on the above definition
+is depicted in \Cref{img:4tapfir}.
+
+\begin{figure}
+\centerline{\includegraphics{4tapfir}}
+\caption{4-taps FIR Filter}
+\label{img:4tapfir}
+\end{figure}
+
\section{Related work}
Many functional hardware description languages have been developed over the
years. Early work includes such languages as $\mu$\acro{FP}~\cite{muFP}, an
projects / matthijs / master-project / dsd-paper.git / blobdiff