proc_dff: respect sync rule priorities when generating complex dffsrs #4569
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
* This fixes YosysHQ#4560, where previously the order that sync rules were processed in depended on the order they were pulled out of a std::map. This PR changes this to process them in the order they are found in, respecting the priorities among the async signals
widlarizer
approved these changes
Aug 28, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The first two cases in the test file fail on main, meaning the test covers the added functionality. This also fixes the test failure at #4524
widlarizer
added
the
merge-after-jf
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This fixes #4560, where previously the order that sync rules were processed in depended on the order they were pulled out of a std::map. This PR changes this to process them in the order they are found in, respecting the priorities among the async signals.
This is an alternative to #4568 that should fix the issues highlighted there (I've tested the example I left in the replies there and it seems to give the correct result now).
It still makes the optimizations made before, such as merging together control signals if all sync rules cause the DFF to take the same value.