Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[WIP/PoC] Add async testbench functions #990

Closed
wants to merge 6 commits into from

Conversation

zyp
Copy link
Contributor

@zyp zyp commented Dec 6, 2023

No description provided.

@whitequark whitequark added this to the 0.5 milestone Jan 30, 2024
Copy link

codecov bot commented Feb 17, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 39.42308% with 63 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 88.84%. Comparing base (7445760) to head (6faab6e).

Files Patch % Lines
amaranth/sim/core.py 43.37% 38 Missing and 9 partials ⚠️
amaranth/sim/_pycoro.py 15.78% 15 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #990      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   89.39%   88.84%   -0.56%     
==========================================
  Files          43       43              
  Lines        9516     9611      +95     
  Branches     2283     2302      +19     
==========================================
+ Hits         8507     8539      +32     
- Misses        820      874      +54     
- Partials      189      198       +9     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Copy link
Member

@whitequark whitequark left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

So I don't think we can really commit to this approach because it implements the new interface in terms of the old one and we want to deprecate and remove the old one. (We also want the new one to have less overhead, not more.)

@zyp
Copy link
Contributor Author

zyp commented Mar 21, 2024

I'm not intending to commit to this approach, but I think it'd be useful to prototype a simple working implementation first and write a suite of passing tests against it before starting on the «real» implementation.

@whitequark
Copy link
Member

Yeah, no objection to that, of course.

@whitequark
Copy link
Member

Thank you for this work, @zyp! PR #1344 supersedes this PR with a more complete implementation. We have ended up rewriting a lot of the simulator internals, as well as filling in the blanks in a few places where the RFC was unimplementable or underspecified.

@whitequark whitequark closed this May 6, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

2 participants