%
\documentclass[conference,pdf,a4paper,10pt,final,twoside,twocolumn]{IEEEtran}
+\IEEEoverridecommandlockouts
% Add the compsoc option for Computer Society conferences.
%
% If IEEEtran.cls has not been installed into the LaTeX system files,
% Macro for certain acronyms in small caps. Doesn't work with the
% default font, though (it contains no smallcaps it seems).
\def\acro#1{{\small{#1}}}
+\def\acrop#1{\acro{#1}s}
+\def\acrotiny#1{{\scriptsize{#1}}}
\def\VHDL{\acro{VHDL}}
\def\GHC{\acro{GHC}}
\def\CLaSH{{\small{C}}$\lambda$a{\small{SH}}}
+\def\CLaSHtiny{{\scriptsize{C}}$\lambda$a{\scriptsize{SH}}}
% Macro for pretty printing haskell snippets. Just monospaced for now, perhaps
% we'll get something more complex later on.
\newcommand{\fref}[1]{\cref{#1}}
\newcommand{\Fref}[1]{\Cref{#1}}
+\usepackage{epstopdf}
+
+\epstopdfDeclareGraphicsRule{.svg}{pdf}{.pdf}{rsvg-convert --format=pdf < #1 > \noexpand\OutputFile}
%include polycode.fmt
%include clash.fmt
+\newcounter{Codecount}
+\setcounter{Codecount}{0}
+
+\newenvironment{example}
+ {
+ \refstepcounter{equation}
+ }
+ {
+ \begin{flushright}
+ (\arabic{equation})
+ \end{flushright}
+ }
+
\begin{document}
%
% paper title
% author names and affiliations
% use a multiple column layout for up to three different
% affiliations
-\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\\
+\author{\IEEEauthorblockN{Matthijs Kooijman, Christiaan P.R. Baaij, Jan Kuper, Marco E.T. Gerards}%, Bert Molenkamp, Sabih H. Gerez}
+\IEEEauthorblockA{%Computer Architecture for Embedded Systems (CAES)\\
+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}}
+matthijs@@stdin.nl, c.p.r.baaij@@utwente.nl, j.kuper@@utwente.nl}
+% \thanks{Supported through the FP7 project: S(o)OS (248465)}
+}
% \and
% \IEEEauthorblockN{Homer Simpson}
% \IEEEauthorblockA{Twentieth Century Fox\\
% make the title area
\maketitle
-
\begin{abstract}
%\boldmath
-The abstract goes here.
+\CLaSH\ is a functional hardware description language that borrows both its
+syntax and semantics from the functional programming language Haskell.
+Polymorphism and higher-order functions provide a level of abstraction and
+generality that allow a circuit designer to describe circuits in a more
+natural way than possible in a traditional hardware description language.
+
+Circuit descriptions can be translated to synthesizable VHDL using the
+prototype \CLaSH\ compiler. As the circuit descriptions, simulation code, and
+test input are also valid Haskell, complete simulations can be compiled as an
+executable binary by a Haskell compiler allowing high-speed simulation and
+analysis.
+
+% \CLaSH\ supports stateful descriptions by explicitly making the current
+% state an argument of the function, and the updated state part of the result.
+% This makes \CLaSH\ descriptions in essence 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,
% creates the second title. It will be ignored for other modes.
\IEEEpeerreviewmaketitle
-
\section{Introduction}
-Hardware description languages has allowed the productivity of hardware
-engineers to keep pace with the development of chip technology. Standard
-Hardware description languages, like \VHDL~\cite{VHDL2008} and
+Hardware description languages (\acrop{HDL}) have allowed the productivity of
+hardware engineers to keep pace with the development of chip technology.
+Traditional \acrop{HDL}, like \VHDL~\cite{VHDL2008} and
Verilog~\cite{Verilog}, allowed an engineer to describe circuits using a
-programming language. These standard languages are very good at describing
+`programming' language. These standard languages are very good at describing
detailed hardware properties such as timing behavior, but are generally
cumbersome in expressing higher-level abstractions. In an attempt to raise the
abstraction level of the descriptions, a great number of approaches based on
-functional languages has been proposed \cite{T-Ruby,Hydra,HML2,Hawk1,Lava,
-ForSyDe1,Wired,reFLect}. The idea of using functional languages for hardware
-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 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
-description languages are embedded as a domain specific language inside the
-functional language Haskell \cite{Hydra,Hawk1,Lava,ForSyDe1,Wired}. This
-means that a developer is given a library of Haskell~\cite{Haskell} functions
-and types that together form the language primitives of the domain specific
-language. As a result of how the signals are modeled and abstracted, the
-functions used to describe a circuit also build a large domain-specific
-datatype (hidden from the designer) which can be further processed by an
-embedded compiler. This compiler actually runs in the same environment as the
-description; as a result compile-time and run-time become hard to define, as
-the embedded compiler is usually compiled by the same Haskell compiler as the
-circuit description itself.
-
-The approach taken in this research is not to make another domain specific
-language embedded in Haskell, but to use (a subset of) the Haskell language
-itself for the purpose of describing hardware. By taking this approach, we can
-capture certain language constructs, such as Haskell's choice elements
-(if-constructs, case-constructs, pattern matching, etc.), which are not
-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 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. A developer describes the behavior of the hardware between
-clock cycles, as such, only synchronous systems can be described. Many
-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.
-
-Like the standard hardware description languages, descriptions made in a
-functional hardware description language must eventually be converted into a
-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 any (optimizing) \VHDL\ synthesis tool.
+functional languages has been proposed \cite{Cardelli1981,muFP,DAISY,
+T-Ruby,HML2,Hydra,Hawk1,Lava,Wired,ForSyDe1,reFLect}. The idea of using
+functional languages for hardware descriptions started in the early 1980s
+\cite{Cardelli1981,muFP,DAISY}, a time which also saw the birth of the
+currently popular \acrop{HDL}, such as \VHDL. Functional
+languages are especially well suited to describe hardware because
+combinational circuits can be directly modeled as mathematical functions and
+functional languages are very good at describing and composing these
+functions.
+
+In an attempt to decrease the amount of work involved in creating all the
+required tooling, such as parsers and type-checkers, many functional
+\acrop{HDL} \cite{Hydra,Hawk1,Lava,Wired} are embedded as a domain
+specific language (\acro{DSL}) within the functional language Haskell
+\cite{Haskell}. This means that a developer is given a library of Haskell
+functions and types that together form the language primitives of the
+\acro{DSL}. The primitive functions used to describe a circuit do not actually
+process any signals, they instead compose a large domain-specific datatype
+(which is usually hidden from the designer). This datatype is then further
+processed by an embedded circuit compiler which can perform for example
+simulation or synthesis. As Haskell's choice elements (\hs{if}-expressions,
+\hs{case}-expressions, etc.) are evaluated at the time the domain-specific
+datatype is being build, they are no longer visible to the embedded compiler
+that processes the datatype. Consequently, it is impossible to capture
+Haskell's choice elements within a circuit description when taking the
+embedded language approach. This does not mean that circuits specified in an
+embedded language can not contain choice, just that choice elements only
+exists as functions, e.g. a multiplexer function, and not as language
+elements.
+
+The approach taken in this research is not to make another \acro{DSL} embedded
+in Haskell, but to use (a subset of) the Haskell language \emph{itself} for
+the purpose of describing hardware. By taking this approach, this research
+\emph{can} capture certain language constructs, such as Haskell's choice
+elements, within circuit descriptions. To the best knowledge of the authors,
+supporting polymorphism, higher-order functions and such an extensive array of
+choice-elements, combined with a very concise way of specifying circuits is
+new in the domain of (functional) \acrop{HDL}.
+% As the hardware descriptions are plain Haskell
+% functions, these descriptions can be compiled to an executable binary
+% for simulation using an optimizing Haskell compiler such as the Glasgow
+% Haskell Compiler (\GHC)~\cite{ghc}.
+
+Where descriptions in a conventional \acro{HDL} have an explicit clock for the
+purposes state and synchronicity, the clock is implied in the context of the
+research presented in this paper. A circuit designer describes the behavior of
+the hardware between clock cycles. Many functional \acrop{HDL} 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 an additional input and the updated state a part of the output of a
+function. This abstraction of state and time limits the descriptions to
+synchronous hardware, there is however room within the language to eventually
+add a different abstraction mechanism that will allow for the modeling of
+asynchronous systems.
+
+Like the traditional \acrop{HDL}, descriptions made in a functional \acro{HDL}
+must eventually be converted into a netlist. This research also features a
+prototype translator, which has the same name as the language:
+\CLaSH\footnote{\CLaSHtiny: \acrotiny{CAES} Language for Synchronous Hardware}
+(pronounced: clash). This compiler converts the Haskell code to equivalently
+behaving synthesizable \VHDL\ code, ready to be converted to an actual netlist
+format by an (optimizing) \VHDL\ synthesis tool.
+
+Besides trivial circuits such as variants of both the \acro{FIR} filter and
+the simple \acro{CPU} shown in \Cref{sec:usecases}, the \CLaSH\ compiler has
+also been able to successfully translate non-trivial functional descriptions
+such as a streaming reduction circuit~\cite{reductioncircuit} for floating
+point numbers.
\section{Hardware description in Haskell}
+The following section describes the basic language elements of \CLaSH\ and the
+extensiveness of the support of these elements within the \CLaSH\ compiler. In
+various subsections, the relation between the language elements and their
+eventual netlist representation is also highlighted.
\subsection{Function application}
- The basic syntactic elements of a functional program are functions
+ Two basic syntactic elements of a functional program are functions
and function application. These have a single obvious translation to a
netlist format:
\begin{inparaenum}
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,
- 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 $a * b + c$:
+ The result value can have a composite type (such as a tuple), so having
+ just a single result value does not pose any limitation. The actual
+ arguments of a function application are assigned to signals, 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. %, creating a hierarchical description of the hardware.
+ % The separation in different components makes it easier for a developer
+ % to understand and possibly hand-optimize the resulting \VHDL\ output of
+ % the \CLaSH\ compiler.
+
+ The short example (\ref{lst:code1}) demonstrated below gives an indication
+ of the level of conciseness that can be achieved with functional hardware
+ description languages when compared with the more traditional hardware
+ description languages. The example is a combinational multiply-accumulate
+ circuit that works for \emph{any} word length (this type of polymorphism
+ will be further elaborated in \Cref{sec:polymorhpism}). The corresponding
+ netlist is depicted in \Cref{img:mac-comb}.
+ \hspace{-1.7em}
+ \begin{minipage}{0.93\linewidth}
\begin{code}
mac a b c = add (mul a b) c
\end{code}
+ \end{minipage}
+ \begin{minipage}{0.07\linewidth}
+ \begin{example}
+ \label{lst:code1}
+ \end{example}
+ \end{minipage}
\begin{figure}
- \centerline{\includegraphics{mac}}
- \caption{Combinatorial Multiply-Accumulate}
+ \centerline{\includegraphics{mac.svg}}
+ \caption{Combinational Multiply-Accumulate}
\label{img:mac-comb}
+ \vspace{-1.5em}
\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:
+ The use of a composite result value is demonstrated in the next example
+ (\ref{lst:code2}), where the multiply-accumulate circuit not only returns
+ the accumulation result, but also the intermediate multiplication result.
+ Its corresponding netlist can be seen in \Cref{img:mac-comb-composite}.
+ \hspace{-1.7em}
+ \begin{minipage}{0.93\linewidth}
\begin{code}
- mac (a, b, c) = add (mul a b) c
+ mac a b c = (z, add z c)
+ where
+ z = mul a b
\end{code}
+ \end{minipage}
+ \begin{minipage}{0.07\linewidth}
+ \begin{example}
+ \label{lst:code2}
+ \end{example}
+ \end{minipage}
\begin{figure}
- \centerline{\includegraphics{mac-nocurry}}
- \caption{Combinatorial Multiply-Accumulate (complex input)}
- \label{img:mac-comb-nocurry}
+ \centerline{\includegraphics{mac-nocurry.svg}}
+ \caption{Combinational Multiply-Accumulate (composite output)}
+ \label{img:mac-comb-composite}
+ \vspace{-1.5em}
\end{figure}
\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.
+ In Haskell, choice can be achieved by a large set of syntactic elements,
+ consisting of: \hs{case} expressions, \hs{if-then-else} expressions,
+ pattern matching, and guards. The most general of these are the \hs{case}
+ expressions (\hs{if} expressions can be directly translated to
+ \hs{case} expressions). When transforming a \CLaSH\ description to a
+ netlist, a \hs{case} expression is translated to a multiplexer. The
+ control value of the \hs{case} expression is fed into a number of
+ comparators and their combined output forms the selection port of the
+ multiplexer. The result of each alternative in the \hs{case} expression is
+ linked to the corresponding input port of 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}.
+ Two versions of a contrived example are displayed below, the first
+ (\ref{lst:code3}) using a \hs{case} expression and the second
+ (\ref{lst:code4}) using an \hs{if-then-else} expression. Both examples
+ sum two values when they are equal or non-equal (depending on the given
+ predicate, the \hs{pred} variable) and return 0 otherwise. The \hs{pred}
+ variable is of the following, user-defined, enumeration datatype:
\begin{code}
- sumif pred a b = case pred of
- Eq -> case a == b of
- True -> a + b
- False -> 0
- Neq -> case a != b of
- True -> a + b
- False -> 0
+ data Pred = Equal | NotEqual
\end{code}
+ The naive netlist corresponding to both versions of the example is
+ depicted in \Cref{img:choice}. Note that the \hs{pred} variable is only
+ compared to \hs{Equal}, as an inequality immediately implies that
+ \hs{pred} is \hs{NotEqual}.
+
+ \hspace{-1.7em}
+ \begin{minipage}{0.93\linewidth}
+ \begin{code}
+ sumif pred a b = case pred of
+ Equal -> case a == b of
+ True -> a + b
+ False -> 0
+ NotEqual -> case a != b of
+ True -> a + b
+ False -> 0
+ \end{code}
+ \end{minipage}
+ \begin{minipage}{0.07\linewidth}
+ \begin{example}
+ \label{lst:code3}
+ \end{example}
+ \end{minipage}
+
+ \hspace{-1.7em}
+ \begin{minipage}{0.93\linewidth}
\begin{code}
sumif pred a b =
- if pred == Eq then
+ if pred == Equal then
if a == b then a + b else 0
else
if a != b then a + b else 0
\end{code}
+ \end{minipage}
+ \begin{minipage}{0.07\linewidth}
+ \begin{example}
+ \label{lst:code4}
+ \end{example}
+ \end{minipage}
\begin{figure}
- \centerline{\includegraphics{choice-case}}
+ \vspace{1em}
+ \centerline{\includegraphics{choice-case.svg}}
\caption{Choice - sumif}
\label{img:choice}
+ \vspace{-1.5em}
\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.
+ A user-friendly and also very powerful form of choice that is not found in
+ the traditional hardware description languages is pattern matching. A
+ function can be defined in multiple clauses, where each clause corresponds
+ to a pattern. When an argument matches a pattern, the corresponding clause
+ will be used. Expressions can also contain guards, where the expression is
+ only executed if the guard evaluates to true, and continues with the next
+ clause if the guard evaluates to false. Like \hs{if-then-else}
+ expressions, pattern matching and guards have a (straightforward)
+ translation to \hs{case} expressions and can as such be mapped to
+ multiplexers. A third version (\ref{lst:code5}) of the earlier example,
+ now using both pattern matching and guards, can be seen below. The guard
+ is the expression that follows the vertical bar (\hs{|}) and precedes the
+ assignment operator (\hs{=}). The \hs{otherwise} guards always evaluate to
+ \hs{true}.
+
+ The version using pattern matching and guards corresponds to the same
+ naive netlist representation (\Cref{img:choice}) as the earlier two
+ versions of the example.
+ \hspace{-1.7em}
+ \begin{minipage}{0.93\linewidth}
\begin{code}
- sumif Eq a b | a == b = a + b
- sumif Neq a b | a != b = a + b
- sumif _ _ _ = 0
+ sumif Equal a b | a == b = a + b
+ | otherwise = 0
+ sumif NotEqual a b | a != b = a + b
+ | otherwise = 0
\end{code}
+ \end{minipage}
+ \begin{minipage}{0.07\linewidth}
+ \begin{example}
+ \label{lst:code5}
+ \end{example}
+ \end{minipage}
% \begin{figure}
% \centerline{\includegraphics{choice-ifthenelse}}
\subsection{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
+ typing constructs have a clear translation to hardware, this section will
+ therefore 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,
+ those types for which a fixed translation is defined within the \CLaSH\
+ compiler. The \CLaSH\ compiler has generic translation rules to
+ translate the user-defined types, which are described later on.
+
+ The \CLaSH\ compiler is able to infer unspecified (polymorphic) types,
meaning that a developer does not have to annotate every function with a
- type signature.
+ type signature. % (even if it is good practice to do so).
+ Given that the top-level entity of a circuit design is annotated with
+ concrete/monomorphic types, the \CLaSH\ compiler can specialize
+ polymorphic functions to functions with concrete types.
% Translation of two most basic functional concepts has been
% discussed: function application and choice. Before looking further
% using translation rules that are discussed later on.
\subsubsection{Built-in types}
- The following types have direct translation defined within the \CLaSH\
+ The following types have fixed translations defined within the \CLaSH\
compiler:
\begin{xlist}
\item[\bf{Bit}]
- This is the most basic type available. It can have two values:
- \hs{Low} and \hs{High}.
+ the most basic type available. It can have two values:
+ \hs{Low} or \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}.
+ this is a basic logic type. It can have two values: \hs{True}
+ or \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
+ \hs{if-then-else} expression, 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. Both are parametrizable in their
- size.
+ \item[\bf{Signed}, \bf{Unsigned}]
+ these are types to represent integers and both are parametrizable in
+ their size. The overflow behavior of the numeric operators defined for
+ these types is \emph{wrap-around}.
% , so you can define an unsigned word of 32 bits wide as follows:
% \begin{code}
% 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
+ this is a vector type that can contain elements of any other type and
+ has a static 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 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 rest of paper is: \hs{[a|n]}, where \hs{a} is the element
+ type, and \hs{n} is the length of the vector. Note that this is
+ a notation used in this paper only, vectors are slightly more
+ verbose in real \CLaSH\ descriptions.
% The state type of an 8 element register bank would then for example
% be:
% \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
+ 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.
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}.
+ implicitly zero. If a value of this type exceeds either bounds, an
+ error will be thrown at simulation-time. The main purpose of the
+ \hs{Index} type is to be used as an index into a \hs{Vector}.
% \comment{TODO: Perhaps remove this example?} To define an index for
% the 8 element vector above, we would do:
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 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
+ % \GHC\ offers a few more advanced ways to introduce types (type families,
+ % existential typing, {\acro{GADT}}s, etc.) which are not standard
+ % Haskell. As it is currently unclear how these advanced type constructs
+ % correspond to hardware, they are for now unsupported by the \CLaSH\
+ % compiler.
Only an algebraic datatype declaration actually introduces a
- completely new type. Type synonyms and renaming constructs only define new
+ completely new type. Type synonyms and type renaming 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:
-
+ and a type renaming requires an explicit conversion. Type synonyms and
+ type renaming 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. 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:
+ as single constructor algebraic types (but with a bit of
+ syntactic sugar). An example of a single constructor type with
+ multiple fields is the following pair of integers:
\begin{code}
data IntPair = IntPair Int Int
\end{code}
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. An example of such an enum type is the type that represents the
- colors in a traffic light:
+ defined as an enumeration type, but that there is a fixed translation
+ for that type within the \CLaSH\ compiler. An example of such an
+ enumeration type is the type that represents the colors in a traffic
+ light:
\begin{code}
data TrafficLight = Red | Orange | Green
\end{code}
% 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.
+ one of these constructors has one or more fields are currently not
+ 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.
+ \subsection{Polymorphism}\label{sec:polymorhpism}
+ A powerful feature of most (functional) programming 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:
+ the following \hs{append} function, which appends an element to a
+ vector:\footnote{The \hs{::} operator is used to annotate a function
+ with its type.}
+
\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 append can append an element to a vector,
+ 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
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 operation. A developer can make use of
- this ad-hoc polymorphism by adding a constraint to a parametrically
+ contains all of Haskell's numerical operations. A designer 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:
+ An example of a type signature that includes such a constraint if the
+ signature of the \hs{sum} function, 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 asL \hs{Num}
- for numerical operations, \hs{Eq} for the equality operators, and
- \hs{Ord} for the comparison/order operators.
-
- \subsection{Higher order}
+ the compiler knows 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 (and thus the \hs{sum}
+ % function) with \hs{Signed} as well as with \hs{Unsigned}.
+
+ \CLaSH\ supports both parametric polymorphism and ad-hoc polymorphism. Any
+ function defined can have any number of unconstrained type parameters. A
+ developer can also specify his own type classes and corresponding
+ instances. The \CLaSH\ compiler will infer the type of every polymorphic
+ argument depending on how the function is applied. There is however one
+ constraint: the top level function that is being translated can not have
+ any polymorphic arguments. The arguments of the top-level can not be
+ polymorphic as the function is never applied and consequently there is no
+ way to determine the actual types for the type parameters.
+
+ With regard to the built-in types, it should be noted that members of
+ some of the standard Haskell type classes are supported as built-in
+ functions. These include: the numerial operators of \hs{Num}, the equality
+ operators of \hs{Eq}, and the comparison/order operators of \hs{Ord}.
+
+ \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
+ the concept of \emph{functions as a first class value}, also called
+ \emph{higher-order functions}. This allows a function to be treated as a
value and be passed around, even as the argument of another
- function. Let's clarify that with an example:
+ function. The following example should clarify this concept:
+ \hspace{-1.7em}
+ \begin{minipage}{0.93\linewidth}
+ %format not = "\mathit{not}"
\begin{code}
- notList xs = map not xs
+ negateVector xs = map not xs
\end{code}
-
- This defines a function \hs{notList}, with a single list of booleans
- \hs{xs} as an argument, which simply negates all of the booleans in
- the list. To do this, it uses the function \hs{map}, which takes
- \emph{another function} as its first argument and applies that other
- function to each element in the list, returning again a list of the
- results.
-
- As you can see, the \hs{map} function is a higher order function,
- since it takes another function as an argument. Also note that
- \hs{map} is again a polymorphic function: It does not pose any
- constraints on the type of elements in the list passed, other than
- that it must be the same as the type of the argument the passed
- function accepts. The type of elements in the resulting list is of
- course equal to the return type of the function passed (which need
- not be the same as the type of elements in the input list). Both of
- these can be readily seen from the type of \hs{map}:
-
- \begin{code}
- map :: (a -> b) -> [a] -> [b]
- \end{code}
-
- As an example from a common hardware design, let's look at the
- equation of a FIR filter.
-
- \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 $t$.
-
- This is easily and directly implemented using higher order
- functions. 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. How \hs{xs} gets its value will be
- show in the next section about state.
+ \end{minipage}
+ \begin{minipage}{0.07\linewidth}
+ \begin{example}
+ \label{lst:code6}
+ \end{example}
+ \end{minipage}
+
+ The code above defines the \hs{negateVector} function, which takes a
+ vector of booleans, \hs{xs}, 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 input vector, other than that its elements must have the same
+ type as the first argument 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}
- fir ... = foldl1 (+) (zipwith (*) xs hs)
+ map :: (a -> b) -> [a|n] -> [b|n]
\end{code}
- Here, the \hs{zipwith} function is very similar to the \hs{map}
- function: It takes a function two lists and then applies the
- function to each of the elements of the two lists pairwise
- (\emph{e.g.}, \hs{zipwith (+) [1, 2] [3, 4]} becomes
- \hs{[1 + 3, 2 + 4]}.
-
- The \hs{foldl1} function takes a function and a single list and applies the
- function to the first two elements of the list. It then applies to
- function to the result of the first application and the next element
- from the list. This continues until the end of the list 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.
-
- To make the correspondence between the code and the equation even
- more obvious, we turn the list of input samples in the equation
- around. So, instead of having the the input sample received at time
- $t$ 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 better suits
- the \hs{x} from the code):
-
- \begin{equation}
- y_t = \sum\nolimits_{i = 0}^{n - 1} {x_i \cdot h_i }
- \end{equation}
-
- So far, only functions have been used as higher order values. In
+ 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
that takes one argument less). As an example, consider the following
expression, that adds one to every element of a vector:
+ \hspace{-1.7em}
+ \begin{minipage}{0.93\linewidth}
\begin{code}
- map ((+) 1) xs
+ map (add 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 labmda expression allows one to introduce an anonymous function
- in any expression. Consider the following expression, which again
- adds one to every element of a list:
-
+ \end{minipage}
+ \begin{minipage}{0.07\linewidth}
+ \begin{example}
+ \label{lst:code7}
+ \end{example}
+ \end{minipage}
+
+ Here, the expression \hs{(add 1)} is the partial application of the
+ addition function to the value \hs{1}, which is again a function that
+ adds one to its (next) 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:
+
+ \hspace{-1.7em}
+ \begin{minipage}{0.93\linewidth}
\begin{code}
map (\x -> x + 1) xs
\end{code}
-
- Finally, higher order arguments are not limited to just builtin
- 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)}
+ \end{minipage}
+ \begin{minipage}{0.07\linewidth}
+ \begin{example}
+ \label{lst:code8}
+ \end{example}
+ \end{minipage}
+
+ Finally, not only built-in functions can have higher order arguments (such
+ as the \hs{map} function), but any function defined in \CLaSH\ may have
+ functions as arguments. This allows the circuit designer to use a
+ powerful amount of code reuse. The only exception is again the top-level
+ function: if a function-typed argument is not applied with an actual
+ function, no hardware can be generated.
+
+ % \comment{TODO: Describe ALU example (no code)}
\subsection{State}
- A very important concept in hardware it the concept of state. In a
+ A very important concept in hardware is the concept of state. In a
stateful design, the outputs depend on the history of the inputs, or the
state. State is usually stored in registers, which retain their value
during a clock cycle. As we want to describe more than simple
- combinatorial designs, \CLaSH\ needs an abstraction mechanism for state.
+ combinational designs, \CLaSH\ needs an abstraction mechanism for state.
An important property in Haskell, and in most other functional languages,
is \emph{purity}. A function is said to be \emph{pure} if it satisfies two
\begin{inparaenum}
\item given the same arguments twice, it should return the same value in
both cases, and
- \item when the function is called, it should not have observable
- side-effects.
+ \item that the function has no 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
- functions, the current value of the state is made an argument of the
- function; the updated state becomes part of the result. A simple example
- is adding an accumulator register to the earlier multiply-accumulate
- circuit, of which the resulting netlist can be seen in
+ % 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 combinational circuits,
+ 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 \CLaSH\ we deal with the concept of state in pure functions by making
+ the current state an additional argument of the function, and the
+ updated state part of result. In this sense the descriptions made in
+ \CLaSH\ are the combinational 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}:
+ \hspace{-1.7em}
+ \begin{minipage}{0.93\linewidth}
\begin{code}
- macS a b (State c) = (State c', outp)
+ macS (State c) a b = (State c', c')
where
- outp = mac a b c
- c' = outp
+ c' = mac a b c
\end{code}
+ \end{minipage}
+ \begin{minipage}{0.07\linewidth}
+ \begin{example}
+ \label{lst:code9}
+ \end{example}
+ \end{minipage}
\begin{figure}
- \centerline{\includegraphics{mac-state}}
+ \centerline{\includegraphics{mac-state.svg}}
\caption{Stateful Multiply-Accumulate}
\label{img:mac-state}
+ \vspace{-1.5em}
\end{figure}
- This approach makes the state of a circuit 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.
-\section{\CLaSH\ prototype}
-
-foo\par bar
+ Note that the \hs{macS} function returns both the new state and the value
+ of the output port. 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 be 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 elements, as state values are just normal values. We can simulate
+ stateful descriptions using the recursive \hs{run} function:
+
+ \hspace{-1.7em}
+ \begin{minipage}{0.93\linewidth}
+ \begin{code}
+ run f s (i : inps) = o : (run f s' inps)
+ where
+ (s', o) = f s i
+ \end{code}
+ \end{minipage}
+ \begin{minipage}{0.07\linewidth}
+ \begin{example}
+ \label{lst:code10}
+ \end{example}
+ \end{minipage}
+
+ The \hs{(:)} operator is the list concatenation operator, where the
+ left-hand side is the head of a list and the right-hand side is the
+ remainder of the list. The \hs{run} function applies the function the
+ developer wants to simulate, \hs{f}, to the current state, \hs{s}, and the
+ first input value, \hs{i}. The result is the first output value, \hs{o},
+ and the updated state \hs{s'}. The next iteration of the \hs{run} function
+ is then called with the updated state, \hs{s'}, and the rest of the
+ inputs, \hs{inps}. For the time being, and in the context of this paper,
+ it is assumed that there is one input per clock cycle. Also note how the
+ order of the input, output, and state in the \hs{run} function corresponds
+ with the order of the input, output and state of the \hs{macS} function
+ described earlier.
+
+ As the \hs{run} function, the hardware description, and the test
+ inputs are also valid Haskell, the complete simulation can be compiled to
+ an executable binary by an optimizing Haskell compiler, or executed in an
+ Haskell interpreter. Both simulation paths are much faster than first
+ translating the description to \VHDL\ and then running a \VHDL\
+ simulation.
+
+\section{The \CLaSH\ compiler}
+An important aspect in this research is the creation of the prototype
+compiler, which allows us to translate descriptions made in the \CLaSH\
+language as described in the previous section to synthesizable \VHDL.
+% , allowing a designer to actually run a \CLaSH\ design on an \acro{FPGA}.
+
+The Glasgow Haskell Compiler (\GHC)~\cite{ghc} is an open-source Haskell
+compiler that also provides a high level API to most of its internals. The
+availability of this high-level API obviated the need to design many of the
+tedious parts of the prototype compiler, such as the parser, semantics
+checker, and especially the type-checker. These parts together form the
+front-end of the prototype compiler pipeline, as seen in
+\Cref{img:compilerpipeline}.
+
+\begin{figure}
+\centerline{\includegraphics{compilerpipeline.svg}}
+\caption{\CLaSHtiny\ compiler pipeline}
+\label{img:compilerpipeline}
+\vspace{-1.5em}
+\end{figure}
+
+The output of the \GHC\ front-end consists of the translation of the original
+Haskell description in \emph{Core}~\cite{Sulzmann2007}, which is a smaller,
+typed, functional language. This \emph{Core} language is relatively easy to
+process compared to the larger Haskell language. A description in \emph{Core}
+can still contain elements which have no direct translation to hardware, such
+as polymorphic types and function-valued arguments. Such a description needs
+to be transformed to a \emph{normal form}, which only contains elements that
+have a direct translation. The second stage of the compiler, the
+\emph{normalization} phase, exhaustively applies a set of
+\emph{meaning-preserving} transformations on the \emph{Core} description until
+this description is in a \emph{normal form}. This set of transformations
+includes transformations typically found in reduction systems and lambda
+calculus~\cite{lambdacalculus}, such as $\beta$-reduction and
+$\eta$-expansion. It also includes self-defined transformations that are
+responsible for the reduction of higher-order functions to `regular'
+first-order functions, and specializing polymorphic types to concrete types.
+
+The final step in the compiler pipeline is the translation to a \VHDL\
+\emph{netlist}, which is a straightforward process due to resemblance of a
+normalized description and a set of concurrent signal assignments. We call the
+end-product of the \CLaSH\ compiler a \VHDL\ \emph{netlist} as the resulting
+\VHDL\ resembles an actual netlist description and not idiomatic \VHDL.
+
+\section{Use cases}
+\label{sec:usecases}
+\subsection{FIR Filter}
+As an example of a common hardware design where the use of higher-order
+functions leads to a very natural description is a \acro{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 \acro{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 \acro{FIR}
+filter is indeed equivalent to the equation of the dot-product, which is
+shown below:
+
+\begin{equation}
+\mathbf{a}\bullet\mathbf{b} = \sum\nolimits_{i = 0}^{n - 1} {a_i \cdot b_i }
+\end{equation}
+
+We can easily and directly implement the equation for the dot-product
+using higher-order functions:
+
+\hspace{-1.7em}
+\begin{minipage}{0.93\linewidth}
+\begin{code}
+as *+* bs = foldl1 (+) (zipWith (*) as bs)
+\end{code}
+\end{minipage}
+\begin{minipage}{0.07\linewidth}
+ \begin{example}
+ \label{lst:code13}
+ \end{example}
+\end{minipage}
+
+The \hs{zipWith} function is very similar to the \hs{map} function seen
+earlier: 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]}).
+
+The \hs{foldl1} function takes a binary 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 in 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. It is obvious
+that the \hs{zipWith (*)} function is pairwise multiplication and that the
+\hs{foldl1 (+)} function is summation.
+% Returning to the actual \acro{FIR} filter, we will slightly change the
+% equation describing it, so as to make the translation to code more obvious and
+% concise. What we do is change the definition of the vector of input samples
+% and delay the computation by one sample. Instead of having the input sample
+% received at time $t$ stored in $x_t$, $x_0$ now always stores the newest
+% 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
+% transformation to code):
+%
+% \begin{equation}
+% y_t = \sum\nolimits_{i = 0}^{n - 1} {x_i \cdot h_i }
+% \end{equation}
+The complete definition of the \acro{FIR} filter in code then becomes:
+
+\hspace{-1.7em}
+\begin{minipage}{0.93\linewidth}
+\begin{code}
+fir (State (xs,hs)) x =
+ (State (x >> xs,hs), (x +> xs) *+* hs)
+\end{code}
+\end{minipage}
+\begin{minipage}{0.07\linewidth}
+ \begin{example}
+ \label{lst:code14}
+ \end{example}
+\end{minipage}
+
+Where the vector \hs{xs} contains the previous input samples, the vector
+\hs{hs} contains the \acro{FIR} coefficients, and \hs{x} is the current input
+sample. The concatenate operator (\hs{+>}) creates a new vector by placing the
+current sample (\hs{x}) in front of the previous samples vector (\hs{xs}). The
+code for the shift (\hs{>>}) operator, that adds the new input sample (\hs{x})
+to the list of previous input samples (\hs{xs}) and removes the oldest sample,
+is shown below:
+
+\hspace{-1.7em}
+\begin{minipage}{0.93\linewidth}
+\begin{code}
+x >> xs = x +> init xs
+\end{code}
+\end{minipage}
+\begin{minipage}{0.07\linewidth}
+ \begin{example}
+ \label{lst:code15}
+ \end{example}
+\end{minipage}
+
+Where the \hs{init} function returns all but the last element of a vector.
+The resulting netlist of a 4-taps \acro{FIR} filter, created by specializing
+the vectors of the \acro{FIR} code to a length of 4, is depicted in
+\Cref{img:4tapfir}.
+
+\begin{figure}
+\centerline{\includegraphics{4tapfir.svg}}
+\caption{4-taps \acrotiny{FIR} Filter}
+\label{img:4tapfir}
+\vspace{-1.5em}
+\end{figure}
+
+\subsection{Higher-order CPU}
+The following simple \acro{CPU} is an example of user-defined higher order
+functions and pattern matching. The \acro{CPU} consists of four function
+units, of which three have a fixed function and one can perform certain less
+common operations.
+
+The \acro{CPU} contains a number of data sources, represented by the
+horizontal wires in \Cref{img:highordcpu}. These data sources offer the
+previous outputs of each function units, along with the single data input the
+\acro{CPU} has and two fixed initialization 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. The output of the rightmost
+function unit is also the output of the entire \acro{CPU}.
+
+Looking at the code, the function unit (\hs{fu}) 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 \hs{op} which is a function
+of two arguments that defines the operation.
+
+\hspace{-1.7em}
+\begin{minipage}{0.93\linewidth}
+\begin{code}
+fu op inputs (addr1, addr2) = regIn
+ where
+ in1 = inputs!addr1
+ in2 = inputs!addr2
+ regIn = op in1 in2
+\end{code}
+\end{minipage}
+\begin{minipage}{0.07\linewidth}
+ \begin{example}
+ \label{lst:code16}
+ \end{example}
+\end{minipage}
+
+The \hs{multiop} function defines the operation that takes place in the
+leftmost function unit. It is essentially a simple three operation \acro{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.
+
+\hspace{-1.7em}
+\begin{minipage}{0.93\linewidth}
+\begin{code}
+data Opcode = Shift | Xor | Equal
+
+multiop :: Opcode -> Word -> Word -> Word
+multiop Shift a b = shift a b
+multiop Xor a b = xor a b
+multiop Equal a b | a == b = 1
+ | otherwise = 0
+\end{code}
+\end{minipage}
+\begin{minipage}{0.07\linewidth}
+ \begin{example}
+ \label{lst:code17}
+ \end{example}
+\end{minipage}
+
+The \acro{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 function 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 as a set of possible operants. The \acro{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 repetitive and could be rewritten to use
+a combination of the \hs{map} and \hs{zipwith} functions instead.
+However, the prototype compiler does not currently support working with lists
+of functions, so a more explicit version of the code is given instead.
+
+\hspace{-1.7em}
+\begin{minipage}{0.93\linewidth}
+\begin{code}
+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
+ 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 +> s))
+ out = head s'
+\end{code}
+\end{minipage}
+\begin{minipage}{0.07\linewidth}
+ \begin{example}
+ \label{lst:code18}
+ \end{example}
+\end{minipage}
+
+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}
-Many functional hardware description languages have been developed over the
-years. Early work includes such languages as $\mu$\acro{FP}~\cite{muFP}, an
-extension of Backus' \acro{FP} language to synchronous streams, designed
-particularly for describing and reasoning about regular circuits. The
-Ruby~\cite{Ruby} language uses relations, instead of functions, to describe
-circuits, and has a particular focus on layout. \acro{HML}~\cite{HML2} is a
-hardware modeling language based on the strict functional language
-\acro{ML}, and has support for polymorphic types and higher-order functions.
-Published work suggests that there is no direct simulation support for
-\acro{HML}, and that the translation to \VHDL\ is only partial.
-
-Like this work, many functional hardware description languages have some sort
-of foundation in the functional programming language Haskell.
-Hawk~\cite{Hawk1} uses Haskell to describe system-level executable
-specifications used to model the behavior of superscalar microprocessors. Hawk
-specifications can be simulated, but there seems to be no support for
-automated circuit synthesis. The ForSyDe~\cite{ForSyDe2} system uses Haskell
-to specify abstract system models, which can (manually) be transformed into an
-implementation model using semantic preserving transformations. ForSyDe has
-several simulation and synthesis backends, though synthesis is restricted to
-the synchronous subset of the ForSyDe language.
-
-Lava~\cite{Lava} is a hardware description language that focuses on the
-structural representation of hardware. Besides support for simulation and
-circuit synthesis, Lava descriptions can be interfaced with formal method
-tools for formal verification. Lava descriptions are actually circuit
-generators when viewed from a synthesis viewpoint, in that the language
-elements of Haskell, such as choice, can be used to guide the circuit
-generation. If a developer wants to insert a choice element inside an actual
-circuit he will have to specify this explicitly as a component. In this
-respect \CLaSH\ differs from Lava, in that all the choice elements, such as
-case-statements and pattern matching, are synthesized to choice elements in the
-eventual circuit. As such, richer control structures can both be specified and
-synthesized in \CLaSH\ compared to any of the languages mentioned in this
-section.
-
-The merits of polymorphic typing, combined with higher-order functions, are
-now also recognized in the `main-stream' hardware description languages,
-exemplified by the new \VHDL-2008 standard~\cite{VHDL2008}. \VHDL-2008 has
-support to specify types as generics, thus allowing a developer to describe
-polymorphic components. Note that those types still require an explicit
-generic map, whereas type-inference and type-specialization are implicit in
-\CLaSH.
+This section describes the features of existing (functional) hardware
+description languages and highlights the advantages that this research has
+over existing work.
+
+% Many functional hardware description languages have been developed over the
+% years. Early work includes such languages as $\mu$\acro{FP}~\cite{muFP}, an
+% extension of Backus' \acro{FP} language to synchronous streams, designed
+% particularly for describing and reasoning about regular circuits. The
+% Ruby~\cite{Ruby} language uses relations, instead of functions, to describe
+% circuits, and has a particular focus on layout.
+
+\acro{HML}~\cite{HML2} is a hardware modeling language based on the strict
+functional language \acro{ML}, and has support for polymorphic types and
+higher-order functions. Published work suggests that there is no direct
+simulation support for \acro{HML}, but that a description in \acro{HML} has to
+be translated to \VHDL\ and that the translated description can then be
+simulated in a \VHDL\ simulator. Certain aspects of HML, such as higher-order
+functions are however not supported by the \VHDL\ translator~\cite{HML3}. The
+\CLaSH\ compiler on the other hand can correctly translate all of the language
+constructs mentioned in this paper. % to a netlist format.
+
+\begin{figure}
+\centerline{\includegraphics{highordcpu.svg}}
+\caption{CPU with higher-order Function Units}
+\label{img:highordcpu}
+\vspace{-1.5em}
+\end{figure}
+
+Like the research presented in this paper, many functional hardware
+description languages have some sort of foundation in the functional
+programming language Haskell. Hawk~\cite{Hawk1} uses Haskell to describe
+system-level executable specifications used to model the behavior of
+superscalar microprocessors. Hawk specifications can be simulated; to the best
+knowledge of the authors there is however no support for automated circuit
+synthesis.
+
+The ForSyDe~\cite{ForSyDe2} system uses Haskell to specify abstract system
+models. A designer can model systems using heterogeneous models of
+computation, which include continuous time, synchronous and untimed models of
+computation. Using so-called domain interfaces a designer can simulate
+electronic systems which have both analog as digital parts. ForSyDe has
+several backends including simulation and automated synthesis, though
+automated synthesis is restricted to the synchronous model of computation.
+Though ForSyDe offers higher-order functions and polymorphism, ForSyDe's
+choice elements are limited to \hs{if} and \hs{case} expressions. ForSyDe's
+explicit conversions, where function have to be wrapped in processes and
+processes have to be wrapped in systems, combined with the explicit
+instantiations of components, also makes ForSyDe more verbose than \CLaSH.
+
+Lava~\cite{Lava} is a hardware description language, embedded in Haskell, and
+focuses on the structural representation of hardware. Like \CLaSH, Lava has
+support for polymorphic types and higher-order functions. Besides support for
+simulation and circuit synthesis, Lava descriptions can be interfaced with
+formal method tools for formal verification. As discussed in the introduction,
+taking the embedded language approach does not allow for Haskell's choice
+elements to be captured within the circuit descriptions. In this respect
+\CLaSH\ differs from Lava, in that all of Haskell's choice elements, such as
+\hs{case}-expressions and pattern matching, are synthesized to choice elements
+in the eventual circuit. Consequently, descriptions containing rich control
+structures can be specified in a more user-friendly way in \CLaSH\ than possible within Lava, and are hence less error-prone.
+
+Bluespec~\cite{Bluespec} is a high-level synthesis language that features
+guarded atomic transactions and allows for the automated derivation of control
+structures based on these atomic transactions. Bluespec, like \CLaSH, supports
+polymorphic typing and function-valued arguments. Bluespec's syntax and
+language features \emph{had} their basis in Haskell. However, in order to
+appeal to the users of the traditional \acrop{HDL}, Bluespec has adapted
+imperative features and a syntax that resembles Verilog. As a result, Bluespec
+is (unnecessarily) verbose when compared to \CLaSH.
+
+The merits of polymorphic typing and function-valued arguments are now also
+recognized in the traditional \acrop{HDL}, exemplified by the new \VHDL-2008
+standard~\cite{VHDL2008}. \VHDL-2008 support for generics has been extended to
+types and subprograms, allowing a designer to describe components with
+polymorphic ports and function-valued arguments. Note that the types and
+subprograms still require an explicit generic map, whereas types can be
+automatically inferred, and function-values can be automatically propagated
+by the \CLaSH\ compiler. There are also no (generally available) \VHDL\
+synthesis tools that currently support the \VHDL-2008 standard.
% Wired~\cite{Wired},, T-Ruby~\cite{T-Ruby}, Hydra~\cite{Hydra}.
%
\section{Conclusion}
-The conclusion goes here.
-
-
-
+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 pattern matching, that are well suited to describe
+the conditional assignments in control-oriented circuits. 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
% use section* for acknowledgement
-\section*{Acknowledgment}
-
-
-The authors would like to thank...
-
-
-
-
+% \section*{Acknowledgment}
+%
+% The authors would like to thank...
% trigger a \newpage just before the given reference
% 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}}
% http://www.michaelshell.org/tex/ieeetran/bibtex/
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
% argument is your BibTeX string definitions and bibliography database(s)
-\bibliography{IEEEabrv,clash.bib}
+\bibliography{clash}
%
% <OR> manually copy in the resultant .bbl file
% set second argument of \begin to the number of references
projects / matthijs / master-project / dsd-paper.git / blobdiff