Intel® High Level Synthesis Compiler Pro Edition: Best Practices Guide

Download PDF
ID 683152
Date 3/28/2022
Public

A newer version of this document is available. Customers should click here to go to the newest version.

Document Table of Contents
Document Table of Contents x
1. Intel® HLS Compiler Pro Edition Best Practices Guide 2. Best Practices for Coding and Compiling Your Component 3. FPGA Concepts 4. Interface Best Practices 5. Loop Best Practices 6. fMAX Bottleneck Best Practices 7. Memory Architecture Best Practices 8. System of Tasks Best Practices 9. Datatype Best Practices 10. Advanced Troubleshooting A. Intel® HLS Compiler Pro Edition Best Practices Guide Archives B. Document Revision History for Intel® HLS Compiler Pro Edition Best Practices Guide
3. FPGA Concepts x
3.1. FPGA Architecture Overview 3.2. Concepts of FPGA Hardware Design 3.3. Methods of Hardware Design
3.1. FPGA Architecture Overview x
3.1.1. Adaptive Logic Module (ALM) 3.1.2. Digital Signal Processing (DSP) Block 3.1.3. Random-Access Memory (RAM) Blocks
3.1.1. Adaptive Logic Module (ALM) x
3.1.1.1. Lookup Table (LUT) 3.1.1.2. Register
3.2. Concepts of FPGA Hardware Design x
3.2.1. Maximum Frequency (fMAX) 3.2.2. Latency 3.2.3. Pipelining 3.2.4. Throughput 3.2.5. Datapath 3.2.6. Control Path 3.2.7. Occupancy
3.3. Methods of Hardware Design x
3.3.1. How Source Code Becomes a Custom Hardware Datapath 3.3.2. Scheduling 3.3.3. Mapping Parallelism Models to FPGA Hardware 3.3.4. Memory Types
3.3.1. How Source Code Becomes a Custom Hardware Datapath x
3.3.1.1. Mapping Source Code Instructions to Hardware 3.3.1.2. Mapping Arrays and Their Accesses to Hardware
3.3.2. Scheduling x
3.3.2.1. Dynamic Scheduling 3.3.2.2. Clustering the Datapath 3.3.2.3. Handshaking Between Clusters
3.3.3. Mapping Parallelism Models to FPGA Hardware x
3.3.3.1. Data Parallelism 3.3.3.2. Task Parallelism
3.3.3.1. Data Parallelism x
3.3.3.1.1. Executing Independent Operations Simultaneously 3.3.3.1.2. Pipelining
3.3.3.1.2. Pipelining x
3.3.3.1.2.1. Pipelining Loops Within A Component 3.3.3.1.2.2. Pipelining Across Component Invocations
3.3.4. Memory Types x
3.3.4.1. Component Memory 3.3.4.2. External Memory
4. Interface Best Practices x
4.1. Choose the Right Interface for Your Component 4.2. Control LSUs For Your Variable-Latency MM Host Interfaces 4.3. Avoid Pointer Aliasing
4.1. Choose the Right Interface for Your Component x
4.1.1. Pointer Interfaces 4.1.2. Avalon® Memory Mapped Host Interfaces 4.1.3. Avalon® Memory Mapped Agent Memories 4.1.4. Avalon® Memory Mapped Agent Registers 4.1.5. Avalon® Streaming Interfaces 4.1.6. Pass-by-Value Interface
5. Loop Best Practices x
5.1. Reuse Hardware By Calling It In a Loop 5.2. Parallelize Loops 5.3. Construct Well-Formed Loops 5.4. Minimize Loop-Carried Dependencies 5.5. Avoid Complex Loop-Exit Conditions 5.6. Convert Nested Loops into a Single Loop 5.7. Place if-Statements in the Lowest Possible Scope in a Loop Nest 5.8. Declare Variables in the Deepest Scope Possible 5.9. Raise Loop II to Increase fMAX 5.10. Control Loop Interleaving
5.2. Parallelize Loops x
5.2.1. Pipeline Loops 5.2.2. Unroll Loops 5.2.3. Example: Loop Pipelining and Unrolling
6. fMAX Bottleneck Best Practices x
6.1. Balancing Target fMAX and Target II
7. Memory Architecture Best Practices x
7.1. Example: Overriding a Coalesced Memory Architecture 7.2. Example: Overriding a Banked Memory Architecture 7.3. Merge Memories to Reduce Area 7.4. Example: Specifying Bank-Selection Bits for Local Memory Addresses
7.3. Merge Memories to Reduce Area x
7.3.1. Example: Merging Memories Depth-Wise 7.3.2. Example: Merging Memories Width-Wise
8. System of Tasks Best Practices x
8.1. Executing Multiple Loops in Parallel 8.2. Sharing an Expensive Compute Block 8.3. Implementing a Hierarchical Design 8.4. Balancing Capacity in a System of Tasks
8.4. Balancing Capacity in a System of Tasks x
8.4.1. Enable the Intel® HLS Compiler to Infer Data Path Buffer Capacity Requirements 8.4.2. Explicitly Add Buffer Capacity to Your Design When Needed
9. Datatype Best Practices x
9.1. Avoid Implicit Data Type Conversions 9.2. Avoid Negative Bit Shifts When Using the ac_int Datatype
10. Advanced Troubleshooting x
10.1. Component Fails Only In Simulation 10.2. Component Gets Poor Quality of Results
1. Intel® HLS Compiler Pro Edition Best Practices Guide
2. Best Practices for Coding and Compiling Your Component
3. FPGA Concepts
4. Interface Best Practices
5. Loop Best Practices
6. fMAX Bottleneck Best Practices
7. Memory Architecture Best Practices
8. System of Tasks Best Practices
9. Datatype Best Practices
10. Advanced Troubleshooting
A. Intel® HLS Compiler Pro Edition Best Practices Guide Archives
B. Document Revision History for Intel® HLS Compiler Pro Edition Best Practices Guide

10.1. Component Fails Only In Simulation

Discrepancies between the results of compiling your component in emulation (-march=x86-64) mode or simulation (-march=FPGA_name_or_part_no ) mode are typically caused by relying on undefined or implementation-defined behavior in your component or testbench. However, there are some common cases where the discrepancies are caused by something else.

Comparing Floating Point Results

Use an epsilon when comparing floating point value results in the testbench. Floating points results from the RTL hardware are different from the x86 emulation flow.

Using #pragma ivdep to Ignore Memory Dependencies

The #pragma ivdep compiler pragma can cause functional incorrectness in your component if your component has a memory dependency that you attempted to ignore with the pragma. You can try to use the safelen modifier to control how many memory accesses that you can permit before a memory dependency occurs.

See Loop-Carried Dependencies (ivdep Pragma) in Intel® High Level Synthesis Compiler Pro Edition Reference Manual for a description of this pragma.

To see an example of using the ivdep pragma, review the tutorial in <quartus_installdir>/hls/examples/tutorials/best_practices/loop_memory_dependency.

Check for Uninitialized Variables

Many coding practices can result in behavior that is undefined by the C++ specification. Sometimes this undefined behavior works one way in emulation and a different way in simulation.

A common example of this situation occurs when your design reads from uninitialized variables, especially uninitialized struct variables.

Check your code for uninitialized values with the -Wuninitialized compiler flag, or debug your emulation testbench with the valgrind debugging tool. The -Wuninitialized compiler flag does not show uninitialized struct variables.

You can also check for misbehaving variables by using one or more stream interfaces as debug streams. You can add one or more ihc::stream_out interfaces to your component to have the component write out its internal state variables as it executes. By comparing the output of the emulation flow and the simulation flow, you can see where the RTL behavior diverges from the emulator behavior.

Non-blocking Stream Accesses

The emulation model of tryRead() is not cycle-accurate, so the behavior of tryRead() might differ between emulation and simulation.

If you have a non-blocking stream access (for example, tryRead()) from a stream with a FIFO (that is, the ihc::buffer<> template parameter), then the first few iterations of tryRead() might return false in simulation, but return true in emulation.

In this case, invoke your component a few extra times from the testbench to guarantee that it consumes all data in the stream. These extra invocations should not cause functional problems because tryRead() returns false.

Invoking Component With ihc_hls_enqueue() Or ihc_hls_enqueue_noret()

If you invoke your component with ihc_hls_enqueue() Or ihc_hls_enqueue_noret(), ensure that you are also calling ihc_hls_component_run_all().

If you do not call ihc_hls_component_run_all(), simulation of your component fails.

Level Two Title