\setlength{\leftmargin}{\labelwidth}
\addtolength{\leftmargin}{\labelsep}
\setlength{\rightmargin}{0pt}
- \setlength{\parsep}{0.5ex plus 0.2ex minus 0.1ex}
+ \setlength{\listparindent}{\parindent}
\setlength{\itemsep}{0 ex plus 0.2ex}
\renewcommand{\makelabel}[1]{##1:\hfil}
}
{\end{list}}
\usepackage{paralist}
+\usepackage{xcolor}
+\def\comment#1{{\color[rgb]{1.0,0.0,0.0}{#1}}}
%include polycode.fmt
%include clash.fmt
\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\ and Verilog, allowed an engineer
-to describe circuits using a 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. These languages also tend to have a complex syntax and a lack of
-formal semantics. To overcome these complexities, and raise the abstraction
-level, 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 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. What gives functional languages
-as hardware description languages their merits is the fact that basic
-combinatorial circuits are equivalent to mathematical function, and that
-functional languages lend themselves very well to describe and compose these
-mathematical functions.
+Hardware description languages, 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
+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 basic combinatorial circuits are equivalent
+to 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}. What this
-means is that a developer is given a library of Haskell functions and types
-that together form the language primitives of the domain specific language.
-Using these functions, the designer does not only describes a circuit, but
-actually builds a large domain-specific datatype 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.
+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 to be used as hardware description language.
+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 language. As the hardware descriptions are plain Haskell
+functions, these descriptions can be compiled for simulation using using the
+optimizing 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
+clock cycles, as such, only synchronous systems can be described. Many
+functional hardware description models 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 optimizing \VHDL\ synthesis tools.
\section{Hardware description in Haskell}
mac a b c = add (mul a b) c
\end{code}
- TODO: Pretty picture
+\comment{TODO: Pretty picture}
\subsection{Choices}
Although describing components and connections allows describing a
expression, one using only case expressions and one using pattern
matching and guards.
-\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
- False -> 0
- 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{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
+ False -> 0
+ 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}
- TODO: Pretty picture
+ \comment{TODO: Pretty picture}
\subsection{Types}
Translation of two most basic functional concepts has been
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
+ 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.
length type, so you can define an unsigned word of 32 bits wide as
follows:
-\begin{code}
-type Word32 = SizedWord D32
-\end{code}
+ \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.
+ 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
- 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:
+ 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}
+ \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.
+ 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}]
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 used as an
- index to a \hs{Vector}.
-
- TODO: Perhaps remove this example?
+ implicitly zero. The main purpose of the \hs{RangedWord} type is to be
+ used as an index to a \hs{Vector}.
- 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.
+ 8 element vector \hs{RegisterState} above. This type is translated to
+ the \texttt{unsigned} \VHDL type.
\end{xlist}
\subsection{User-defined types}
\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:
+ record-like structure. An example of such a type is the following pair
+ of integers:
\begin{code}
data IntPair = IntPair Int Int
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.
+ rule by the \CLaSH\ compiler. 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.
+ 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.
\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
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
+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
projects / matthijs / master-project / dsd-paper.git / blobdiff