( ESNUG 366 Item 5 ) --------------------------------------------- [02/23/01]
Subject: ( ESNUG 365 #1 ) PhysOpt Troubles & Avanti Discouraging PDEF 3.0
> We are running into the same PDEF 3.0 for PhysOpt problem Bob reported back
> in March 2000 (11 months ago!) Wouldn't you think Avanti would have fixed
> this by now?! Could anyone who has them please send us the Scheme scripts
> used to process the Avanti PDEF 2.0 files for PhysOpt?
>
> - Andy Pagones
> Motorola Labs/CSTL Illinois
From: [ The Truth Is Out There ]
John, first off, thank you for all the work you put into ESNUG.
I'm not suprised that Avanti's R&D hasn't fixed problems with PDEF 3.0.
My sources at Avanti has told me that Avanti's R&D stand is to encourage
flows using PDEF 2.0 and discourage flows using PDEF 3.0.
Please keep my response anonymous.
- [ The Truth Is Out There ]
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
From: Kevin Grotjohn <krag@lsil.com>
John,
All of these PDEF X.0 versions that are not properly interfaced between
vendors have a solution. IEEE 1481 includes a section that clearly
specifies the syntax, semantics, and examples for the standard
planning/placement interface that supersedes earlier versions. The same
standard also covers SPEF which is commonly used for parasitics between
these tools, as well as DCL for standard timing engines.
Maybe the EDA vendors make more money from script consulting services to
interface tools, or selling integrated single vendor flows. It does cost
money to upgrade parsers/writers after all, and what would us designers do
if we had tools that interfaced cleanly? Maybe EDA vendors fear designers
will discover new features of the interfaces and demand tool support for
them?
- Kevin Grotjohn
LSI Logic
|
|
