Department of EEMCS, University of Twente\\
P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE, Enschede, The Netherlands\\
c.p.r.baaij@@utwente.nl, matthijs@@stdin.nl, j.kuper@@utwente.nl}
-% \thanks{Supported through FP7 project: S(o)OS (248465)}
+\thanks{Supported through the FP7 project: S(o)OS (248465)}
}
% \and
% \IEEEauthorblockN{Homer Simpson}
\begin{abstract}
%\boldmath
\CLaSH\ is a functional hardware description language that borrows both its
-syntax and semantics from the functional programming language Haskell. Circuit
-descriptions can be translated to synthesizable VHDL using the prototype
-\CLaSH\ compiler. As the circuit descriptions are made in plain Haskell,
-simulations can also be compiled by a Haskell compiler.
-
-The use of polymorphism and higher-order functions allow a circuit designer to
-describe more abstract and general specifications than are possible in the
-traditional hardware description languages.
+syntax and semantics from the functional programming language Haskell. Due to
+the abstraction and generality offered by polymorphism and higher-order
+functions, a circuit designer can describe circuits in a more natural way than
+he could in the traditional hardware description languages.
+
+Circuit descriptions can be translated to synthesizable VHDL using the
+prototype \CLaSH\ compiler. As the circuit descriptions, simulation code, and
+test input are plain Haskell, complete simulations can be compiled to an
+executable binary by a Haskell compiler allowing high-speed simulation and
+analysis.
+
+Stateful descriptions are supported by explicitly making the current state an
+argument of the function, and the updated state part of the result. In this
+sense, the descriptions made in \CLaSH\ are the combinational parts of a mealy
+machine.
\end{abstract}
% IEEEtran.cls defaults to using nonbold math in the Abstract.
% This preserves the distinction between vectors and scalars. However,
\end{figure}
\subsection{Higher order CPU}
+The following simple CPU is an example of user-defined higher order
+functions and pattern matching. The CPU consists of four function units,
+of which three have a fixed function and one can perform some less
+common operations.
+
+The CPU contains a number of data sources, represented by the horizontal
+lines in figure TODO:REF. These data sources offer the previous outputs
+of each function units, along with the single data input the cpu has and
+two fixed intialization values.
+
+Each of the function units has both its operands connected to all data
+sources, and can be programmed to select any data source for either
+operand. In addition, the leftmost function unit has an additional
+opcode input to select the operation it performs. Its output is also the
+output of the entire cpu.
+
+Looking at the code, the function unit is the most simple. It arranges
+the operand selection for the function unit. Note that it does not
+define the actual operation that takes place inside the function unit,
+but simply accepts the (higher order) argument "op" which is a function
+of two arguments that defines the operation.
\begin{code}
fu op inputs (addr1, addr2) = regIn
regIn = op in1 in2
\end{code}
+The multiop function defines the operation that takes place in the
+leftmost function unit. It is essentially a simple three operation alu
+that makes good use of pattern matching and guards in its description.
+The \hs{shift} function used here shifts its first operand by the number
+of bits indicated in the second operand, the \hs{xor} function produces
+the bitwise xor of its operands.
+
+\begin{code}
+data Opcode = Shift | Xor | Equal
+
+multiop :: Opcode -> Word -> Word -> Word
+multiop opc a b = case opc of
+ Shift -> shift a b
+ Xor -> xor a b
+ Equal | a == b -> 1
+ | otherwise -> 0
+\end{code}
+
+The cpu function ties everything together. It applies the \hs{fu}
+function four times, to create a different function unit each time. The
+first application is interesting, because it does not just pass a
+function to \hs{fu}, but a partial application of \hs{multiop}. This
+shows how the first funcition unit effectively gets an extra input,
+compared to the others.
+
+The vector \hs{inputs} is the set of data sources, which is passed to
+each function unit for operand selection. The cpu also receives a vector
+of address pairs, which are used by each function unit to select their
+operand. The application of the function units to the \hs{inputs} and
+\hs{addrs} arguments seems quite repetive and could be rewritten to use
+a combination of the \hs{map} and \hs{zipwith} functions instead.
+However, the prototype does not currently support working with lists of
+functions, so the more explicit version of the code is given instead).
+
\begin{code}
-cpu :: Word -> [(Index 6, Index 6) | 4]
- -> State [Word | 4] -> (State [Word | 4], Word)
-cpu input addrs (State fuss) = (State fuss', out)
+type CpuState = State [Word | 4]
+
+cpu :: CpuState -> Word -> [(Index 6, Index 6) | 4]
+ -> Opcode -> (CpuState, Word)
+cpu (State s) input addrs opc = (State s', out)
where
- fuss' = [ fu const inputs (addrs!0)
- , fu (+) inputs (addrs!1)
- , fu (-) inputs (addrs!2)
- , fu (*) inputs (addrs!3)
+ s' = [ fu (multiop opc) inputs (addrs!0)
+ , fu add inputs (addrs!1)
+ , fu sub inputs (addrs!2)
+ , fu mul inputs (addrs!3)
]
- inputs = 0 +> (1 +> (input +> fuss))
- out = head fuss
+ inputs = 0 +> (1 +> (input +> s))
+ out = head s'
\end{code}
+Of course, this is still a simple example, but it could form the basis
+of an actual design, in which the same techniques can be reused.
+
\section{Related work}
This section describes the features of existing (functional) hardware
description languages and highlights the advantages that this research has
\section{Conclusion}
-This research demonstrates once more that functional languages are well suited for hardware descriptions: function applications provide an elegant notation for component instantiation. Where this research goes beyond the existing functional hardware descriptions languages is the inclusion of various choice elements that are well suited to describe the conditional assignments in control-oriented hardware. Besides being able to translate these basic constructs to synthesizable \VHDL, the prototype compiler can also correctly translate descriptions that contain both polymorphic types and function-valued arguments.
-
-Where recent functional hardware description languages have mostly opted to embed themselves in an existing functional language, this research features a `true' compiler. As a result there is a clear distinction between compile-time and run-time, which allows a myriad of choice constructs to be part of an actual circuit description; a feature the embedded languages do not offer.
+This research demonstrates once more that functional languages are well suited
+for hardware descriptions: function applications provide an elegant notation
+for component instantiation. Where this research goes beyond the existing
+(functional) hardware descriptions languages is the inclusion of various
+choice elements, such as patter matching, that are well suited to describe the
+conditional assignments in control-oriented hardware. Besides being able to
+translate these basic constructs to synthesizable \VHDL, the prototype
+compiler can also correctly translate descriptions that contain both
+polymorphic types and function-valued arguments.
+
+Where recent functional hardware description languages have mostly opted to
+embed themselves in an existing functional language, this research features a
+`true' compiler. As a result there is a clear distinction between compile-time
+and run-time, which allows a myriad of choice constructs to be part of the
+actual circuit description; a feature the embedded hardware description
+languages do not offer.
\section{Future Work}
+The choice of describing state explicitly as extra arguments and results can
+be seen as a mixed blessing. Even though the description that use state are
+usually very clear, one finds that dealing with unpacking, passing, receiving
+and repacking can become tedious and even error-prone, especially in the case
+of sub-states. Removing this boilerplate, or finding a more suitable
+abstraction mechanism would make \CLaSH\ easier to use.
+
+The transformations in normalization phase of the prototype compiler were
+developed in an ad-hoc manner, which makes the existence of many desirable
+properties unclear. Such properties include whether the complete set of
+transformations will always lead to a normal form or if the normalization
+process always terminates. Though various use cases suggests that these
+properties usually hold, they have not been formally proven. A systematic
+approach to defining the set of transformations allows one to proof that the
+earlier mentioned properties do indeed exist.
% conference papers do not normally have an appendix
% number - used to balance the columns on the last page
% adjust value as needed - may need to be readjusted if
% the document is modified later
-%\IEEEtriggeratref{8}
+\IEEEtriggeratref{14}
% The "triggered" command can be changed if desired:
%\IEEEtriggercmd{\enlargethispage{-5in}}
projects / matthijs / master-project / dsd-paper.git / blobdiff