Conversation
davideschiavone
force-pushed
the
fix300
branch
from
adb94ac to
45f099d
Compare
| rf_we_raw = rf_we_dec & ex_valid_i; | ||
| end | ||
|
|
||
| if (illegal_insn_dec && XInterface) begin |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This will work in simulation. Will synthesis produce the expected results?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
it should yes - but we should try with some real co-processor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am not worried about the case when there is a module connected to the XIF and the parameter XInterface is set to 1. That will work as expected in both simulation and synthesis. What is less clear is what will be produced in synthesis when XInterface is 0.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In that case, coproc_done will always be 1 as its default value is set here
and it could go to zero only if this statement is true.
This can never be as the XInterface parameter would be 0 at design time - so the synthesizer would simply remove this logic, and there should not be any latch inferred.
Similarly, as this if statement would always be 0 , the coproc_done value here would never be assigned, so it would keep its default value at 1 - if you prefer for readability, I can do else coproc_done = 1'b1 - that's why when XInterface is 0 the CPU is Sequentially Equivalent.
If instead you refer to the situation that there is an illegal instruction and you are in the MULTI_CYCLE state, then no worries, you can never be here as you would never been entered this state if illegals and XInterace is 0. That's why when XInterface is 0 the CPU is Sequentially Equivalent.
2 participants
It is expected to break when Xinterface is active