On Tue, 2009-07-14 at 14:09 -0400, Sanjay Singh wrote: > Please correct me if I am wrong, but is the need to iterate over > processes to decide whether to resume them or not a testbench-specific > issue for your particular situation? You say you've changed from
No. Any (non-trivial) testbench will have at least one non-sensitized process which will need to be iterated over. > non-sensitized to sensitized VITAL blocks but still getting the same > behaviour, so its therefore instrinsic to the grt itself. Yes. The example I posted with the bug report does not use VITAL at one. > Is there any way to determine for other types of simulations whether the > addition of the data structures to track sensitized and non-sensitized > processes would help or hinder performance for other simulation runs? Profiling testcases with the original and the changed kernel is IMO the only way to determine this. > GHDL has been around for some time, and this appears to be the first > time something like this has come up. Indeed, GHDL has been around for some time, but so have the complaints about it being slow. I'm not aware of much profiling work having been done in the recent years... It's hard to get such kernel datastructures right, IMO only trial, analysis (profiling), and improvement can help. Tom _______________________________________________ Ghdl-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/ghdl-discuss
