This post is part of a series – click here for the index.
For FPGA development, VHDL was my default language for a while. That started to shift towards Verilog when I discovered Yosys-SMTBMC created by Clifford Wolf, which is a formal verification tool for hardware. However, recently I’ve been exploring other HDL languages and one that peaked my interest is Clash. It stands for CAES Language for Synchronous Hardware, and it is built upon Haskell. Its compiler is open-source and is mainly developed by the people at QBayLogic. Since I am doing my PhD at the CAES group at the University of Twente, it might seem as an obvious choice to explore Clash. But having very little experience with functional programming, this seemed challenging to me. Could I really develop hardware in a language that is very foreign to me?
I think it is safe to say that not many hardware developers for FPGAs have lots of functional programming experience. But don’t let that stop you! I want to show you that it is totally doable. You only need to understand a few gotcha’s which I will describe and this and future blog posts.
Disclaimer: I’m not a Haskell expert at all, and my explanations will most likely be oversimplified and perhaps not entirely correct for the sake of not over-complicating things. Even so, for this first post on Clash, I do try to explain the implementation details very thoroughly.
Reminder: All the code for this post and future posts can be found in the Bitlog Clash tutorial Github repository.
Why a functional programming language as an HDL?
A pure functional programming language guarantees that functions have no side-effects, i.e. they do not alter nor depend on some global state or time. This means that each time that you call a function with the same input, you will always get the same output, which is a nice property to have. If we look at hardware, you often describe combinatorial and synchronous processes that take some input, and produce some output, i.e. they take some state, and produce a new state. Each input and output is explicitly defined (think of the sensitivity list of your processes/always blocks), and if you give it a specific input each time, you get the same output every single time. This kind of sounds like a pure functional programming language, doesn’t it?
When developing in Clash (and Haskell), think of functions as things that transform one to state to another state. What this means is that you can separate your specification from your implementation. In other words, you describe what a function must do instead of how it must do it. When you specify something, you abstract away the details of the platform it runs on, whereas with an implementation you have to take the platform into account. They might seem the same, but hopefully I can show the differences in this and future posts.
Setting things up
When exploring something new, it is often a good idea to start with the basics. Since Clash is built upon Haskell, we will need to understand the syntax first. I can definitely recommend Learn You A Haskell For Great Good, A brief introduction to Haskell, and Functional Programming lecture recordings by Jan Kuper, one of the originators of Clash.
Next we need to install Clash. For this post I will be using the latest release as of this writing which is 0.7.2. It requires version 8.0.2 of the Glasgow Haskell Compiler (GHC) but because I’m running Arch Linux, the version of GHC in the repositories is 8.2.2-1. That’s why I use Stack to create a sandbox with the correct version of GHC and Clash. First, install Stack using your package manager. Using stackage.org we can find the lts version that contains the latest GHC 8.0 release which is 9.21. We can now use Stack to create a sandbox by running the following commands:
stack setup --resolver lts-9.21 stack install --resolver lts-9.21 clash-ghc-0.7.2
To start the Clash interactive environment, run:
stack exec clashi
You should be greeted with the following prompt:
CLaSHi, version 0.7.2 (using clash-lib, version 0.7.1): http://www.clash-lang.org/ :? for help CLaSH.Prelude>
A Simple Example
Let’s start with a simple example. Create a project folder and start Clash in that folder. Then create a file named Example1.hs with the following contents:
module Example1 where import CLaSH.Prelude counter val = val + 1 counter2 val = adder val 1 adder val1 val2 = val1 + val2 topEntity = counter
You can load and reload a file using
:l Example1 and
Haskell programs consist of modules, and in line 1 we describe the name of the module. It is recommended for the module name to match the name of the file (Example1.hs in this example). The second line imports the CLaSH.Prelude module which can be thought of the standard library of Clash. That module contains types and functions that can be used to generate synthesizable hardware. The other lines create four functions named counter, counter2, adder, and topEntity (functions start with a lower-case letter).
In this example, both functions describe combinatorial circuits, with counter and counter2 having one input and one output, and adder having two inputs and an output. If you have noticed, we haven’t described the types of the inputs and output. We can ask the type of our functions using
:t <function name>:
*Example1> :t counter counter :: Num a => a -> a *Example1> :t counter2 counter2 :: Num a => a -> a *Example1> :t adder adder :: Num a => a -> a -> a *Example1> :t topEntity topEntity :: Num a => a -> a
Let’s dissect the results by breaking them up into three parts.
- The part before the
::is the name of the function.
- The part after the
=>describes the inputs and the output. In Haskell, a function can have zero or more inputs, and only one output. The inputs and output are seperated with a singular arrow (
->), and since there can only be one output, the very last thing after the last
->is the type of the output.
- The part between the
=>describe to which class(es) a type belongs to.
If we look at the type definition of the counter function, we see that it has one input of type
a, and one output which is also of type
a. Also, type
a belongs to the
Num class of types, which is any numeric type. The adder function is very similar, except that it has two inputs (denoted by the
a -> a -> part). counter2 is an alternative version that uses the adder function, where the input val is passed on to adder and the second input to adder is fixed at 1. topEntity should look familiar to those that use VHDL/Verilog. It is used by Clash to define the top entity that will be evaluated when we want to generate VHDL and (System)Verilog. In our example, this means that our top entity is the counter function, and therefore it has the same type. You can see that I’ve not specified the input and output for topEntity, because Haskell understands that the type definition of topEntity is the same as that of counter. We could have also written:
topEntity val = counter val
It is functionally equivalent to writing it the way we wrote it before, and depends on your preference. In this case, the type of counter is so trivial, that I didn’t bother writing it more explicitly.
Haskell programmers will most likely say “That’s not a hardware description, that’s just a normal Haskell function!”, and they are right. Since Clash is built upon Haskell, it basically is Haskell with additional functions and types that can be synthesized. Now, Haskell actually managed to deduce that a should be a numeric type since we use addition in the function, but it keeps the type as “generic” as possible. This is called polymorphic in Haskell, since it can accept multiple types. We could have specified by hand that our functions only take
Floats and returns a
Float, but then they would not be able to add
While it is nice that our functions are polymorphic, they cannot be synthesized because Clash needs to know the exact type of
a, i.e. it has to be in normal form.
Num is a class of numbers, but it isn’t a specific type. What should it generate? Something that takes signed/unsigned integers? How many bits should be used to represent the numbers? Since there is (luckily?) no support for mind reading in Clash, we have specify it ourselves. In other words, the highest function (topEntity in our case) cannot be polymorphic, as Clash needs to know what to generate. Change the file to:
module Example1 where import CLaSH.Prelude counter val = val + 1 counter2 val = adder val 1 adder val1 val2 = val1 + val2 topEntity :: Integer -> Integer topEntity = counter
Now we specify that the input and output of our top entity are of type
Integer. Why did add the type specification to topEntity and not counter? Sure, we could have done that, but in general it is better to specify concrete types in the outer layers of your design. Changing the types throughout your design becomes easier since you have to change it in fewer places, while still keeping the inner layers polymorphic.
Integer is a Haskell type which is 64 bits on my machine, and if we were to generate VHDL/Verilog by issuing
:verilog respectively, we would see that the input and output type would be 64 bit signed numbers. However, you most likely want to be able to control the type and size of the inputs and outputs. Luckily, Clash has some types built in that we can use:
BitVector n: these are similar to std_(u)logic and std_(u)logic_vector in VHDL, and represent raw bits. Here, the
nspecifies the size of the
Unsigned n: as the names imply, they represent
nbit signed and unsigned integers.
SFixed int fracand
UFixed int frac: these are signed and unsigned fixed-point representations with
intbits for the integer part and
fracbits for the fractional part respectively.
Vec n t: it is a vector of size
nthat stores things of type
If we now change our file to:
module Example1 where import CLaSH.Prelude counter val = val + 1 counter2 val = adder val 1 adder val1 val2 = val1 + val2 topEntity :: Unsigned 10 -> Unsigned 10 topEntity = counter
and generate VHDL/Verilog, then we would see that the input and output type would be 10 bit unsigned numbers.
If we wanted to use the adder function as our top entity, how should we change the type definition of topEntity? If you recall, the type definition of the adder function is
adder :: Num a => a -> a -> a. Let’s say we want to use 16 bit signed values for the inputs and output. We can accomplish this by changing the type and implementation of topEntity to:
topEntity :: Signed 16 -> Signed 16 -> Signed 16 topEntity = adder
Evaluating our functions
One of the benefits of Clash is that you can evaluate your functions using the REPL provided by the interactive environment. This might not seem useful in our example since the functions are trivial, but when you have larger functions then its usefulness increases a lot.
Let’s evaluate our counter function first:
*Example1> counter 4 5
Since we didn’t provide a type definition for counter, it will take anything that belongs to the
Num class, which 4 is:
*Example1> :t 4 4 :: Num t => t
If we want to test it with a different type (such as an
Unsigned 3 for example), then we can specify what the type of our input is like this:
*Example1> counter (4 :: Unsigned 3) 5
We can check what the type of the result is, even though we know it has to be the same type as that of the input:
*Example1> :t counter (4 :: Unsigned 3) counter (4 :: Unsigned 3) :: Unsigned 3
This shows us that if we invoke counter with an input that has the type
Unsigned 3, then the output will also have the type
Unsigned 3. We could have also chosen to specify a type definition for counter itself as we did for topEntity. Because the types for topEntity have been defined, we do not have to specify them when evaluating the function:
*Example1> topEntity 3 4 *Example1> topEntity (-1) 0 *Example1> :t topEntity (-1) topEntity (-1) :: Signed 16
Note that for negative numbers, we have to place the number between brackets because the minus sign is a unary function.
In the same way, we can also evaluate adder:
*Example1> adder (3 :: Signed 3) (5 :: Signed 3) 0 *Example1> :t adder (3 :: Signed 3) (5 :: Signed 3) adder (3 :: Signed 3) (5 :: Signed 3) :: Signed 3 *Example1> adder (3 :: Signed 4) (5 :: Signed 4) -8 *Example1> :t adder (3 :: Signed 4) (5 :: Signed 4) adder (3 :: Signed 4) (5 :: Signed 4) :: Signed 4
Here we can see that if we add 3 and 5 together, the result is zero, since a 3 bit signed number can only represent numbers between [-4, 3]. Similarly, the result for a 4 bit signed number would be -8 because of the wrap around.
Recommended reading material: Syntax in Functions
We have defined two very simple functions, but now we want to use an enable signal to control the counter. Here is an implementation that will do just that:
counter2 :: Num t => t -> Bool -> t counter2 val enable = case enable of True -> val + 1 False -> val
I’ve also added the type definition that Haskell deduced. Since we pattern match enable with True and False, Haskell understands that enable must be of type Bool. Pattern matching is very powerful, even if it doesn’t really show when using it for a Bool. However, in future posts we will use types that have more than two values and hopefully then it will become apparent that they are very useful.
If we want our top entity to use our new counter, the resulting file becomes:
module Example1 where import CLaSH.Prelude counter val = val + 1 counter2 val = adder val 1 counter3 val enable = case enable of True -> val + 1 False -> val counter4 val enable = case enable of True -> adder val 1 False -> val adder val1 val2 = val1 + val2 topEntity :: Signed 16 -> Bool -> Signed 16 topEntity = counter3
We can evaluate our new counter (I will use topEntity so that I don’t have to specify the type of the inputs):
*Example1> topEntity 3 True 4 *Example1> :t topEntity 3 True topEntity 3 True :: Signed 16 *Example1> topEntity 6 False 6
Just to introduce some useful syntax (the where clause), we could also write the same function like this:
counter3 val enable = o where o = case enable of True -> val + 1 False -> val
In this version we introduce o, where o is either val + 1 or val depending on enable. In this function, it doesn’t make much sense to do this, but in functions that are more complex the where clause becomes very useful. We can demonstrate this with a function that either adds or subtracts based on a boolean:
addsub :: Num t => t -> t -> Bool -> t addsub val1 val2 a_ns = o where res_add = val1 + val2 res_sub = val1 - val2 o = case a_ns of True -> res_add False -> res_sub
Again, I’ve added the type specification that Haskell deduced. We have three inputs (
t -> t -> Bool) where t is a Num, a_ns is a Bool that determines if we should add or subtract, and the output is also of type t. We could have written is more concisely, but some might consider this more readable. We use the where clause to bind the two possible results to the names res_add and res_sub.
A circular stack
Let’s create something a little bit more complex, but still trivial enough to understand by simply looking at the function. We will create a stack, which is a piece of memory where you can push thing onto it, and pop things off of it. A stack pointer is used to keep track of where in memory data is pushed or popped. More specifically, we will implement a circular stack, where the stack pointer simply wraps around when push or pop more times back to back than the size of the stack. Here is an initial, ugly version:
stack1 (mem, sp) push pop value = ((mem', sp'), o) where sp' = case push of True -> case pop of True -> sp False -> sp + 1 False -> case pop of True -> sp - 1 False -> sp mem' = case push of True -> replace sp value mem False -> mem o = case pop of True -> mem !! sp' _ -> 0
Let’s first look at the type:
*Example1> :t stack1 stack1 :: (Enum t1, KnownNat n, Num t1, Num t) => (Vec n t, t1) -> Bool -> Bool -> t -> ((Vec n t, t1), t)
Now don’t let that overwhelm you! Let’s dissect the type of the stack1 function. The part after the
=> shows that we have 4 inputs of types (given as
(Vec n t, t1)): The first input is a tuple, which is denoted by comma separated values within brackets. It holds two things:
mem - Vec n t), which is a vector of size
nthat stores things of type
nbelongs to the class
KnownNat n, which is a natural number that has to have an actual value when we want to generate VHDL/Verilog.
tbelongs to the class
Num, which we have seen before.
t1): the stack pointer
spbelongs to the classes ,
Enum t1, and
Num t1. Again, we have seen
Enumis something that is enumerable.
Bool): this determines if we want to push something onto the stack.
Bool): this determines if we want to pop something off of the stack.
valueis what we push onto the stack if
pushis True. Its type is
t, which is the same type as the things that are in
The return type is a tuple:
(mem', sp'): the first element of the output is also a tuple and contains two things:
Vec n t1):
mem'(note the prime) is the new state of the memory and has the same type as
mem. This of course makes sense since it is the same thing except that it might contain other values in its new state.
sp'(again, note the prime) is the new state of the stack pointer and has the same type as
sp. Note that it is not necessary to give the outputs the same name as the inputs appended with a prime, we can give them any unused name we want.
Here it becomes much more clear what I meant in the beginning where Haskell (and therefore Clash) allows you to separate your specification from your implementation. stack1 is a function that takes a certain state and returns a new state. We do not specify what kind of memory we are using, how big it is, what the type of the values we want to push onto our stack is, and so on, because those are implementation details. We only specify what this function should do, which is to conditionally update a value in
mem, and conditionally return the top value on the stack. And when we actually choose what the types of our functions will be, then we obtain an implementation.
Let’s go back to the function itself. I have grouped the
sp together in a tuple, because I consider those the internal state of the stack. This doesn’t mean that the function stores any internal state though, because this function describes a combinatorial circuit. Think of it as a logical grouping of things that belong together. In later posts I will cover registers that can store state, and it will become much more apparent why I did it like this (hint: look up a Mealy machine). The other inputs are self explanatory I think. For the output, I again combined the new state of the memory and stack pointer in a tuple
(mem', sp'), and also we have some output
The first two lines
stack1 (mem, sp) push pop value = ((mem', sp'), o) where
describe a function stack1 that takes 4 inputs (1 tuple, 2 bools and a value), and introduces three new names
o. Next, we bind a value to
sp'depending on the state of
sp' = case push of True -> case pop of True -> sp False -> sp + 1 False -> case pop of True -> sp - 1 False -> sp
If we only want to push or pop, then the stack pointer will be increased or decreased by one respectively. But if we want to push and pop at the same time, then the stack pointer will remain the same because the increase and decrease of the stack pointer would cancel each other out.
Next up is the memory:
mem' = case push of True -> replace sp value mem False -> mem
If we don’t push anything on the stack then we just bind
mem', since it doesn’t change the state of the memory. However, when we push then we have to modify the state of the memory. That is what the replace function does:
*Example1> :t replace replace :: (Enum i, KnownNat n) => i -> a -> Vec n a -> Vec n a
It takes an index
i, a value
a, and a vector, and returns a new vector where the value at index
i is replaced by value
a. And that is exactly what we want!
Finally, we bind a value to
o = case pop of True -> mem !! sp' _ -> 0
If we want to pop, then
o gets bound the value of the memory location pointed to by the new stack pointer
sp'. It will become apparent why I didn’t use the old stack pointer
sp to index the memory when we evaluate our function in a bit. To actually get the value at a specific index of a vector (remember,
mem is a vector), we use the !! function:
*Example1> :t (!!) (!!) :: (Enum i, KnownNat n) => Vec n a -> i -> a
It takes a vector of size
n that holds things of type
a, an index
i, and it returns something of type
a. The reason why I place brackets around the function when I ask for the type of the !! function is because it is an infix function whereas normally, functions in Haskell are prefix functions.
Evaluating our stack
We can evaluate our stack like so:
*Example1> stack1 ((0 :> 0 :> 0 :> 0 :> Nil), 0 :: Unsigned 2) True False 42 ((<42,0,0,0>,1),0) *Example1> stack1 (((0 :: Signed 16) :> 0 :> 0 :> 0 :> Nil), 0 :: Unsigned 2) True False 42 ((<42,0,0,0>,1),0)
The first input is a tuple, and the first element of that tuple is a vector. We can create vectors by hand using the following syntax:
(<value1> :> <value2> :> ... :> <valueN> :> Nil)
As you can see, I’ve evaluated the function twice, with a small difference between both. Why did I do this? Well, let’s look at the types of both:
*Example1> :t stack1 ((0 :> 0 :> 0 :> 0 :> Nil), 0 :: Unsigned 2) True False 42 stack1 ((0 :> 0 :> 0 :> 0 :> Nil), 0 :: Unsigned 2) True False 42 :: Num t => ((Vec 4 t, Unsigned 2), t) *Example1> :t stack1 (((0 :: Signed 16) :> 0 :> 0 :> 0 :> Nil), 0 :: Unsigned 2) True False 42 stack1 (((0 :: Signed 16) :> 0 :> 0 :> 0 :> Nil), 0 :: Unsigned 2) True False 42 :: ((Vec 4 (Signed 16), Unsigned 2), Signed 16)
In the first version, I didn’t specify the type of the values in the vector so Haskell deduced that its type is a
Num. We have seen before that we cannot generate hardware if we do not specify a concrete type for our vector. In the second version, I only specify the type for the first value in the vector
(0 :: Signed 16), because Haskell knows that the types of all the elements in a vector are the same.
Because our vector has a size of 4, I specified the type of the stack pointer to be
Unsigned 2 so that we cannot address beyond its size. Furthermore, we set
push to True and
pop to False, and the value that we want to push is 42 (very original, I know).
The resulting new state is
<42, 0, 0, 0>is the contents of the vector
1is the value of the stack pointer after we have applied the stack1 function, i.e. it is the next state of the stack pointer
0is the new value of
o. Since we didn’t pop anything, it is bound to 0 just like we specified.
But what if we want to test with a bigger vector? Do we have to type a bunch of zeroes or other values? Luckily, there is a function repeat that takes care of this for us:
*Example1> :t repeat repeat :: KnownNat n => a -> Vec n a
It takes something of type
a and returns a vector of size
n storing things of type
a. Let’s use the repeat function to make our lives easier, and let’s also bind the new state to something (x in this case):
*Example1> x = stack1 (repeat 0 :: Vec 8 (Signed 16), 0 :: Unsigned 3) True False 3 *Example1> x ((<3,0,0,0,0,0,0,0>,1),0) *Example1> :t x x :: ((Vec 8 (Signed 16), Unsigned 3), Signed 16)
We can also go from this new state stored in x to a different state. Let’s try it by popping the value that we just pushed:
*Example1> y = stack1 (fst x) False True 0 *Example1> y ((<3,0,0,0,0,0,0,0>,0),3)
Because the output of the stack1 function is a tuple, and the type of the first element of that tuple
(mem', sp') matches the type of one of its inputs, we can simply take the first element of x, and use it as the first input:
*Example1> :t stack1 stack1 :: (Enum t1, KnownNat n, Num t1, Num t) => (Vec n t, t1) -> Bool -> Bool -> t -> ((Vec n t, t1), t) \-----------/ \-----------/ | | ---------------------------------------- Same type!
From the result, we can see that popping doesn’t change the contents of the memory, but it decreases the stack pointer by one, and output the the value stored at the decreased stack pointer. In this implementation, the stack pointer always points to the memory location where a new value would be pushed. So when we pop, we want to output the value of the current stack pointer minus one, which is what we bind to
Idx |-----| 3 | 0 | |-----| 2 | 0 | |-----| 1 | 0 | <- sp This is where the next value will be pushed. |-----| 0 | 3 | <- sp' (= sp - 1) This is the value we just pushed. |-----|
Now for those playing along, there is a bug in my function when you push and pop at the same time. The correct behavior should be that the previous value should be popped and replaced with the new value, but this doesn’t happen. Can you figure out why, and how can you fix it? I will explain the bug and fix it in the next post, but for now I leave it as homework ;)
We have gone over the very basics of Clash and created a few simple functions. What I have noticed while writing this post is that I have shown a lot of types. Some of them were scary looking for non functional programmers, which might give you the impression that you have wrestle with them all the time. However, types are very useful and will help you when you will be debugging! And luckily, you don’t have to deal with that a majority of the time. Also, our stack implementation looks very ugly, and doesn’t show the power of Clash at all. In the next post, we will improve our stack function and make it much more readable and concise. We will also introduce registers so that we can create hardware that has state.
All the code we wrote in this blog post and will write in future posts can be found in the Bitlog Clash tutorial Github repository. The code for this part is in the part_1 folder in the repo, and I have added some additional things like the stack2 function that looks a little bit nicer (but still has the same bug!), and a modified topEntity that uses the stack. The type definition of topEntity looks very convoluted, but see if you understand why it is correct. At the end of the next post it will look something like this:
*Stack> :t topEntity topEntity :: Signal SInstr -> Signal Value
Play around with it, and generate some hardware. If you have questions and/or constructive criticism, let me know on Twitter @BitlogIT
Oguz Meteer (guztech) is an embedded systems engineer, and a PhD student at the University of Twente. His interests lie in computer graphics, FPGA development, and formal verification of hardware. He is also a consultant at GuzTech.
Who are we?
We are a collective of people with different backgrounds and a shared interest in the outskirts of technology.