2011Unpublished venueOpen access

Logic synthesis and physical design: Quo vadis?

Giovanni De Micheli

Open full text 4 citations

Abstract

Virtually all current integrated circuits and systems would not exist without the use of logic synthesis and physical design tools. These design technologies were developed in the last fifty years and it is hard to say if they have come to full maturity. Physical design evolved from methods used for printed-circuit boards, where the classic problems of placement and routing surfaced for the first time. Logic synthesis evolved in a different trajectory, starting from the classic works on switching theory, but took a sharp turn in the eighties when multi-level logic synthesis, coupled to semicustom technologies, provided designers with a means to map models in hardware description languages into netlists ready for physical design. The clear separation between logic and physical design tasks enabled the development of effective design tool flows, where signoff could be done at the netlist level. Nevertheless, the relentless downscaling of semiconductor technologies forced this separation to disappear, once circuit delays became interconnect-dominated. Since the nineties, design flows combined logic and physical design tools to address the so-called timing closure problem, i.e., to reduce the designer effort to synthesize a design that satisfies all timing constraints. Despite many efforts in various directions, most notably with the use of the fixed timing methodology, this problem is not completely solved yet. The complexity of integrated logic and physical tool flows, as well as the decrease in design starts of large ASICs, limits the development of these flows to a few EDA companies.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Virtually all current integrated circuits and systems would not exist without the use of logic synthesis and physical design tools. These design technologies were developed in the last fifty years and it is hard to say if they have come to full maturity. Physical design evolved from methods used for printed-circuit boards, where the classic problems of placement and routing surfaced for the first time. Logic synthesis evolved in a different trajectory, starting from the classic works on switching theory, but took a sharp turn in the eighties when multi-level logic synthesis, coupled to semicustom technologies, provided designers with a means to map models in hardware description languages into netlists ready for physical design. The clear separation between logic and physical design tasks enabled the development of effective design tool flows, where signoff could be done at the netlist level. Nevertheless, the relentless downscaling of semiconductor technologies forced this separation to disappear, once circuit delays became interconnect-dominated. Since the nineties, design flows combined logic and physical design tools to address the so-called timing closure problem, i.e., to reduce the designer effort to synthesize a design that satisfies all timing constraints. Despite many efforts in various directions, most notably with the use of the fixed timing methodology, this problem is not completely solved yet. The complexity of integrated logic and physical tool flows, as well as the decrease in design starts of large ASICs, limits the development of these flows to a few EDA companies.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 4 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Virtually all current integrated circuits and systems would not exist without the use of logic synthesis and physical design tools. These design technologies were developed in the last fifty years and it is hard to say if they have come to full maturity. Physical design evolved from methods used for printed-circuit boards, where the classic problems of placement and routing surfaced for the first time. Logic synthesis evolved in a different trajectory, starting from the classic works on switching theory, but took a sharp turn in the eighties when multi-level logic synthesis, coupled to semicustom technologies, provided designers with a means to map models in hardware description languages into netlists ready for physical design. The clear separation between logic and physical design tasks enabled the development of effective design tool flows, where signoff could be done at the netlist level. Nevertheless, the relentless downscaling of semiconductor technologies forced this separation to disappear, once circuit delays became interconnect-dominated. Since the nineties, design flows combined logic and physical design tools to address the so-called timing closure problem, i.e., to reduce the designer effort to synthesize a design that satisfies all timing constraints. Despite many efforts in various directions, most notably with the use of the fixed timing methodology, this problem is not completely solved yet. The complexity of integrated logic and physical tool flows, as well as the decrease in design starts of large ASICs, limits the development of these flows to a few EDA companies.

Key concepts: Physical design, Netlist, Computer science, Logic synthesis, Register-transfer level, Design flow, Routing (electronic design automation), Logic optimization

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Logic synthesis and physical design: Quo vadis? — Research Paper | ScholarLens