Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
RTL Simulation Enhancements #562
RTL Simulation Enhancements #562
Changes from all commits
1012e15
57a4b52
d2de2e7
40d4d47
376656a
69b455f
b6122c4
9250d04
3a03e98
fd6b7d6
f7106d0
5b7f2d6
b895220
23ff1ef
30c77d7
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This file is useful, but I'd argue this is also out of scope for the PR. Is this worked into the build flow at all? That would be a nice feature to add.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
i think its in the scope of this pr. this is my "verilator enhancements" pr. i'm removed the build-script stuff
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
this script is a hack. this could be done in a firrtl pass, and hopefully the firrtl-pass would not be too slow compared to this hacky solution.
however, the firrtl pass does not exist, so we must live with this hack for now
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The PR title is
Multithread verilator
. This is what goes into the release notes, merge commit, etc. If this is aVerilator enhancement
PR you need to adjust the title/description.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I tend to agree with John here. I think the multi-threading work will take significantly longer to get in/reviewed, whereas the printf stuff would be a quick merge.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
PR scope adjusted.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'd still like to see this worked into the build flow in this PR
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
on the other hand, it is nice to not have to invoke the JVM and run all the firrtl passes again just to change which printfs get displayed. So I can see a case for having the printf filtering happen after the
make verilog
target completes.Although I admit again, that the current solution is a hack.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why would you need to invoke the JVM? Just have another intermediate make target that runs this script
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's not immediately obvious to me what "output instructions" means. I might suggest "log instructions to a file"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This list is incomplete, which might actually do more harm than good. It's also probably important to note that there are Make targets that come from the included
.d
files (like therun-*-tests
targets).There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What's the point of
run-binary-debug-fast
?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
i'm not trying to list all 1000 make targets, just the ones that non-power-users find useful. i can add the
run-*-tests
. if any other generally useful targets are missing, please enumerate them.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
i use
run-binary-debug-fast
all the time to run the debug binary without generating the waveform or instruction trace.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't think
run-binary-debug-fast
makes sense. It should just berun-binary-fast
if you don't want the waveform or instruction trace.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I actually think this is less readable than it was before, but even if I didn't, style changes make PRs harder to review, as it's less obvious where functionality has and has not changed. I'm not just saying this to be stubborn; you're taking more of your reviewers' time by doing this, and it's annoying that I keep having to repeat this.