Home > Community > Forums > Digital Implementation > Nanoroute problem

Email
* Required Fields

Recipients email * (separate multiple addresses with commas)

Your name *

Your email *

Message *

Contact Us

Cadence Contacts

Global Office Locator
Find Offices worldwide »

Sales Inquiry
Request for Product information »
Cadence Channel Partners »

Corporate Headquarters
Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
2655 Seely Avenue
San Jose, CA 95134
Phone: 408.943.1234
* Required Fields
First Name *

Last Name *

Email *

Company / Institution *

Comments: *

 Nanoroute problem 

Last post Wed, Nov 4 2009 5:46 AM by amrzahir. 4 replies.
Started by amrzahir 26 Oct 2009 12:52 AM. Topic has 4 replies.
Page 1 of 1 (5 items)
Sort Posts:

  • Mon, Oct 26 2009 12:52 AM

    • amrzahir
    • Not Ranked
    • Joined on Mon, Oct 26 2009
    • Posts 6
    • Points 90
    Nanoroute problem Reply
    I've a strange problem here, I'm using First Encounter to layout a digital design (about 300K standard cells design), targeting IBM 0.13u technology. What happens is after placement and Clock tree synthesis I use Nanoroute engine for routing, and then use timing optimization to meet time constraints. After running the optimization the results is excellent. But when I run timing analysis alone it gives a slack far from what results from the timing optimization ! I just want to know what is the problem. I doubt about the technology files but I need help please. BTW, I used wroute before with 0.35u technology and this didn't happen. Thanks
    • Post Points: 20

  • Tue, Oct 27 2009 10:36 AM

    • BobD
    • Top 25 Contributor
    • Joined on Fri, Jul 11 2008
    • <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-16"?><string>Chelmsford, MA</string>
    • Posts 237
    • Points 8,755
    Re: Nanoroute problem Reply

    If I follow correctly, timing is reported as being met when optDesign -postRoute finishes, however when the design is re-timed after optimization has finished, timing is reported as *not* being met?  If that's the case- I'd wonder how timing is being reported.  Is it with "timeDesign -postRoute?  If so then it seems like a bug.  If not, try timeDesign -postRoute and let us know what you find.

    Either way, it sounds like you have a situation that would we could use to improve the software and/or learn from as users of the tool.

    • Post Points: 20

  • Wed, Oct 28 2009 6:45 AM

    • amrzahir
    • Not Ranked
    • Joined on Mon, Oct 26 2009
    • Posts 6
    • Points 90
    Re: Nanoroute problem Reply
    Thanks for your reply. I actually use (optDesign -postRoute) and yes what happens is exactly as you said. I need to know what is the difference between these two commands: 1) reportTA. 2) timeDesign. as the problem occurs with (reportTA) command, but when I used (timeDesign -postRoute) no slacks appeared. By the way, I make timing analysis from GUI (timing->timing analysis) and these are the results: After optDesign: (Worst Slack: -0.412ns) After timing analysis: (Worst negative slacks=-2.803) Sorry for long reply
    • Post Points: 20

  • Wed, Oct 28 2009 6:51 AM

    • BobD
    • Top 25 Contributor
    • Joined on Fri, Jul 11 2008
    • <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-16"?><string>Chelmsford, MA</string>
    • Posts 237
    • Points 8,755
    Re: Nanoroute problem Reply

    reportTA has been obsoleted some time ago in favor of timeDesign.  In 8.1 I see it reported as an internal-only command:

    encounter 5> help reportTA
    Command 'REPORTTA' is for Cadence internal use only.

    timeDesign takes care of applying the recommended extraction settings depending on which stage in the process you're in (-preCTS | -postCTS | -postRoute etc).  I'd recommend sticking with timeDesign for these reasons.

    Thanks,
    Bob
    • Post Points: 20

  • Wed, Nov 4 2009 5:46 AM

    • amrzahir
    • Not Ranked
    • Joined on Mon, Oct 26 2009
    • Posts 6
    • Points 90
    Re: Nanoroute problem Reply
    Thanks a lot BobD. It's solved :)
    • Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (5 items)
Sort Posts:
Started by amrzahir at 26 Oct 2009 12:52 AM. Topic has 4 replies.