skip to main content
10.1145/123186.123258acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesdacConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article
Free access

Comparing structurally different views of a VLSI design

Published: 03 January 1991 Publication History

Abstract

In large design projects, it is desirable to compare alternate views that use different hierarchies. However, existing techniques either require essentially identical hierarchies (which is sometimes an unacceptable restriction) or must flatten to remove the differences (which may be very costly). A new technique, Informed Comparison, has neither shortcoming. First, hierarchy transformations are applied to reconcile the structures of the views; then a hierarchical base comparison finishes the task. The reconciliation is guided by a small amount of additional design information: the intended relationship between the hierarchies of the views. Some qualities of Informed Comparison depend on the reconciliation repertoire and the base comparison. Two examples are studied.

References

[1]
Richard Barth, Louis Monler, Bertrand Serlet, and Pradeep Sindhu. VLSI design aids: Capture, integration, and layout generation. Xerox Polo Alto Research Center, July 1988.
[2]
Carl Ebeling and Ofer Zajicek. Validating VLSI circuit layout by wirelist comparison. IEEE International Conference on Computer-Aided Design, 1983.
[3]
John E. Hopcroft and Jeffrey D. Ullman. Introduction to Automata Theory, Languages, and Computation. Addison-Wesley, 1979.
[4]
Mark Horowitz, John L. Hennessy, Paul Chow, P. Glenn Gulak, John M. Acken, Anant Agarwal, Chorng-Yeung Chu, Scott A. McFarling, Steven A. Przybylski, Steve E. Richardson, arturo Salz, Richard T. Simoni, Don C. Stark, Peter A. Steenkiste, Steve W. K. Tjiang, and Malcolm J. Wing. A 32b microprocessor with on-chip 2K byte instruction cache. IEEE International Solid-State Circuits Conference, February 1987.
[5]
Mike Spreitzer. Comparing Structurally Different Views of a VLSI Design. PhD thesis, Stanford University, 1989.
[6]
Makoto Takashima, Takashi Mitsuhashi, Toshiaki Chiba, and Kenji Yoshida. Programs for verifying circuit connectivity of MOS / LSI mask artwork. ACM IEEE 19th Design Automation Conference, 1982.
[7]
J. D. Tygar and Ron Ellickson. Efficient netlist comparison using hierarchy and randomization. ACM IEEE 22nd Design Automation Conference, 1985.
[8]
Valid Logic Systems. COMPARE reference manual. SCALD star Release 9.1. San Jose, CA, 1 April 1987.
[9]
Daniel Weise. Formal verification of MOS circuits. ACM IEEE 24th Design Automation Conference, 1987.

Cited By

View all

Index Terms

  1. Comparing structurally different views of a VLSI design

      Comments

      Information & Contributors

      Information

      Published In

      cover image ACM Conferences
      DAC '90: Proceedings of the 27th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference
      January 1991
      742 pages
      ISBN:0897913639
      DOI:10.1145/123186
      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Sponsors

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      Published: 03 January 1991

      Permissions

      Request permissions for this article.

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • Article

      Conference

      DAC90
      Sponsor:
      DAC90: The 27th ACM/IEEE-CS Design Automation Conference
      June 24 - 27, 1990
      Florida, Orlando, USA

      Acceptance Rates

      DAC '90 Paper Acceptance Rate 125 of 427 submissions, 29%;
      Overall Acceptance Rate 1,770 of 5,499 submissions, 32%

      Upcoming Conference

      DAC '25
      62nd ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference
      June 22 - 26, 2025
      San Francisco , CA , USA

      Contributors

      Other Metrics

      Bibliometrics & Citations

      Bibliometrics

      Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)35
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)4
      Reflects downloads up to 01 Jan 2025

      Other Metrics

      Citations

      Cited By

      View all

      View Options

      View options

      PDF

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      Login options

      Media

      Figures

      Other

      Tables

      Share

      Share

      Share this Publication link

      Share on social media