Adrien, In the VUnit[1] test automation framework we are able to support multiple parallel simulations using the same top level with different generic values using --elab-run. We just ensure that different output folders are used. This is possible thanks to some recent improvements in the output flags of GHDL.
[1] https://github.com/LarsAsplund/vunit Den 1 okt 2015 21:20 skrev "Adrien Prost-Boucle" < [email protected]>: > Hi Tristan, > > Now the -g options are implemented and work at run time, I tend to love > it, and use it. > > I often design with large number of generics in order to be able to > investigate impact on design efficiency / latency / throughput. > I compile all VHDL files with the gcc version of GHDL, and obtain an > executable. > Then I launch many runs in parallel with different parameters (with -g > options), and in different folders with different data files. > This is extremely convenient. > > With -g options applying only at elaboration, I would have to do > re-elaboration for each tested configuration. > I suspect I would need to generate N versions of the simulator, in > different directories, which could make GHDL usage more complicated. > Elaboration take time (at least with the gcc version). > Olof Kraigher suggested using --elab-run but measuring simulation time > gets strongly biased this way. > > On one hand, I think being able to set some generics with -g at > elaboration time can have a positive impact, > on the generated simulator speed and on the generated executable size. > But on the other hand, the disappearance of ALL generics for run time > would be painful. > > But I haven't seriously investigated : what I wrote above is only > assumption, > please correct me if I'm wrong! > > The ideal flow would be, from my point of view: > - all -g options set at elaboration time make the corresponding generic > value be hard-set in the generated simulator, > - -g options for remaining generics are still available at run time > Such a flow would be very generic and this is guaranteed to fit any > serious or fancy user need. > > Is -g support at run time really hard to maintain for current and future > GHDL developments? > > Regards, > Adrien > > > On Thu, 2015-09-24 at 21:15 +0200, Tristan Gingold wrote: > [...] > > BTW, I plan to change the switch to override generics of > > the top entity. It will still be -gNAME=VAl but have to be > > set during elaboration. > > This won't happen before 0.33. I plan to have both > > mechanisms for 0.34 but remove the current mechanism > > for 0.35. Let me know if this is an issue for you. > > > > Tristan. > > _______________________________________________ > Ghdl-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/ghdl-discuss >
_______________________________________________ Ghdl-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/ghdl-discuss
