[SOLVED] COMP4601 lab hand-in exercises

1. In the spirit of the exercises listed on page 75 of the text, implement the code of
Figure 3.3 using floating point data types. You are to compare the performance and
resource usage of this baseline with implementations using fixed data types.The code from Figure 3.3 is contained in the design file cordic.cpp. This file uses
cordic.h and has a simulation file, cordic-top.cpp, associated with it. These files
have been included in the ex1 subdirectory of the lab3.zip file for your
convenience.Additional files provided in lab3/ex1 include cordic-float.tcl to
create the project cordic_float_prj, and the header files cordic-float.h and
cordic-fixed.h to replace cordic.h, as explained below.
a. Copy cordic-float.h to cordic.h
b. Run vivado_hls -f cordic-float.tcl in the Vivado HLS command
prompt window.c. Run vivado_hls -p cordic_float_prj from the Vivado HLS command
prompt
d. Check the source code as well as the header file to make sure you are
running the code from Figure 3.3 with floating point data types
e. Simulate and synthesize the baseline, solution1f. Create a new solution, solution2
g. Copy cordic-fixed.h to cordic.h in Windows.
h. Simulate and synthesize the design using ap_fixed<12,2> data types instead
of floating point
i. Create a new solution, solution3j. Modify the data type of THETA_TYPE and COS_SIN_TYPE in cordic.h to
ap_fixed<16,2> in the source pane of the Vivado HLS GUI
k. Simulate and synthesize the designl. Compare the performance (estimated clock period and latency), resource
utilization and accuracy of the three implementations. Summarize and
explain the differences in the execution schedules across the three solutions.
Report your observations and thoughts in your hand-in for Week 3.
m. Close Vivado HLS2. Next, use the files contained in lab3/ex2 to compare the implementation of the
code from Figure 3.3 with the code from Figure 3.6 using the ap_fixed<12,2> data
type.a. Inspect cordic.h
b. Run vivado_hls -f cordic-optimized.tcl in the Vivado HLS command
prompt
c. Run vivado_hls -p cordic_optimized_prj in the Vivado HLS command
prompt
d. Check that the source code and header file correspond to Figure 3.6 with
ap_fixed<12,2> type variablese. Simulate and synthesize the design
f. In your hand-in for Week 3, summarize the similarities and differences in
performance, latency, area usage and accuracy between the
implementations of cordic_optimized_prj/solution1 from 2.e with that of
cordic_float_prj/solution2 from 1.h. Explain your findings.3. Examine the execution schedule in the Analysis perspective for
cordic_optimized_prj/solution1 from 2.e.
a. Concisely explain the schedule in your hand-in
b. Try predicting the effect of unrolling the for loop by a factor of 2, then create
a new solution (solution2) and check your hypothesis. Report your findings in
your hand-in. Hint: add an UNROLL directive to the for loop.c. What happens if you change the unroll factor to 4 and 8? Create a new
solution (solution3) and find out. Why doesn’t the performance improve as
you increase the unroll factor? How could you eliminate the bottleneck?
Report your findings and discuss them in your hand-in.d. Create a new solution (solution4) to pipeline the loop without unrolling it.
Compare the results with that of unrolling (solution2) in your hand-in.
e. What other optimizations would you try to improve the performance and
minimize the increase in area of the implementation? Discuss in your handin.4. How does increasing and reducing NUM_ITERATIONS affect the area, throughput, and
precision of your solutions? Create a new solution and edit this constant in
cordic.h. Try setting the constant to 16, 12 and 8. Simulate and synthesize each
design.How does this affect the initial values of current_cos and current_sin? Do
you need to modify the array cordic_phase? Can you optimize the data types
depending upon the value of NUM_ITERATIONS? Respond to these questions in your
hand-in for Week 3.