[LLHD] Flesh out zero-delay semantics
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- C++
- Stars
- 2.2k
- Forks
- 524
- Avg merge
- 3d 2h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 46
Description
In various places it would be helpful if the llhd.drv operation (and potential future llhd.output) without any delay. This would allow implementing folds like:
%0 = llhd.prb %sigA
llhd.drv %sigB, %0
// or
%0 = llhd.prb %sigA
%sigB = llhd.output %0
// fold to
llhd.buffer %sigB, %sigA // one-way connect from A to B
It's not quite clear what the simulation semantics of zero-delay should be. Simulation could just error out on zero-delays or replace them with a 1d delay. We might also choose to integrated the zero-delay signal into the event queue when updating the signal values in between time steps. Something similar is going to be needed for llhd.con anyway.
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by examining the stated zero-delay cases for llhd.drv and potential llhd.output, then trace how llhd.buffer and llhd.con are expected to relate to them. Compare the proposed error, 1d replacement, and event-queue alternatives, and establish simulation behavior and folding criteria before implementation.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Domain
- compilers
- Issue type
- Feature
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100