Stats

  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 3
  • Subscribers 65
  • Views 14872
  • Members are here 0
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Hierachical comparisson issues in LEC

Verplec

Hello,

      I sucessfully completed a 

   write hier_compare

   run hier_compare

 verification approach , however in the run log i see 2 primary warnings:

  // Warning: Module 'XXXXXXX' exists in Revised only. Skip it for hierarchical comparison

// Warning: Golden or Revised have modules with number of instances less than 50. Skip it for hierarchical comparison
//    (G) xxxxxxx
//    (R) xxxxxxx

I am wondering if any one be kind enough to help me , ridding of these warnings or a work around to inform LEC not to skip anything.

Thank you in advance.

Roy

  • Hello Roy, For the first message there may be some restructuring done.If it is a noneq then would definitely show up at the top level.As far as the second message is concerned modules which are skipped are merged onto the toplevel and then compared.So we can safely ignore these messages. --Vishnu

  •  Hi Vishnu,

    Thank you for the prompt reply, for the first warning 

      // Warning: Module 'XXXXXXX' exists in Revised only. Skip it for hierarchical comparison

    prior to  " write hier_compare " I have perform set naming rules

    set naming rule "_" -hier -both            // hierarchy separator char: Golden and Revised
    add ren rule r1 "_reg\[%d\]" "_reg_@1_0" -gold               
    add ren rule r2 "_reg\[%d\]\[%d\]" "_reg_@1__@2_0" -gold   
    add ren rule r3 "queue_table\[%d\]" "queue_table_@1_0" -gold
    add ren rule r4 "queue_table\[%d\]\[%d\]" "queue_table_@1__@2_0" -gold

     could those warning be the result of the renaming rules?

     as for your explanation of the second class of warning , how can I show , that those skipped modules are merged and still compared. I need to show proof basically , not that I don't trust you.

     one last question in this post  , I thought the write/run hier_compare routine black boxes sub modules, so how does a noneq in a submodule be detected at top level module?

    Thank you

    Roy

    Vishnu said:

     

    Hello Roy, For the first message there may be some restructuring done.If it is a noneq then would definitely show up at the top level.As far as the second message is concerned modules which are skipped are merged onto the toplevel and then compared.So we can safely ignore these messages. --Vishnu

  • Hello Roy, 1) Is the renaming rule cause of the problem ? a) If the renaming rule was a success , you would not seen the warning of a missing module on revised or golden. b) if the renaming rule failed then there is a possibility of you seeing the message.Have you tried the "test renaming rule" to check if it worked? 2) to show if the modules are really merged ? That is the core functionality and the warning message is the proof.One way of checking may be using gate manager or schematic to prove this. 3) black boxing ? there is a concept of dynamic hierarchical comparision where the non-eq module are un black boxed and included in the comaprision of the parent module.You may want to get the script reviewed by the expert support available by filing a ticket through sourcelink.cadence.com. Hope this helps. -- Vishnu

Community Guidelines

The Cadence Design Communities support Cadence users and technologists interacting to exchange ideas, news, technical information, and best practices to solve problems and get the most from Cadence technology. The community is open to everyone, and to provide the most value, we require participants to follow our Community Guidelines that facilitate a quality exchange of ideas and information. By accessing, contributing, using or downloading any materials from the site, you agree to be bound by the full Community Guidelines.