Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

mpl: fix fixed terminals for cluster of unplaced IOs #6689

Open
wants to merge 5 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

AcKoucher
Copy link
Contributor

Fix #6668

What is Wrong

In the context of the WL computation inside SA for the cluster of unconstrained pins, the distance to boundary is being wrongly computed, because we're using the shape of its Cluster object which does not take into account the offset w.r.t. the current outline.

Context and Changes

Originally, a fixed terminal in HierRTLMP was just a Soft/Hard Macro with the shape of a point (area = 0).
With the new IOs' abstraction implemented in #5809, for clusters of unplaced IOs, we need to have a Soft/Hard Macro object with a proper shape inside SA in order to compute the distance to the closest boundary correctly.

As this needs to happen for both cluster placement (Soft) and macro placement (Hard) I made the constructors used to create fixed terminals in both Hard/Soft Macro have the same arguments to be able to template the function that uses these constructors.

I.e., this PR ensures that, inside SACore, for a WL computation in which one of the objects is a cluster of unplaced IOs:

  • the Cluster object is used to identify to which boundary the cluster of unplaced IOs is constrained to.
  • the Soft/Hard Macro object is used to compute the dist to the closest boundary in the case of the cluster of unconstrained IOs.

Copy link
Contributor

@github-actions github-actions bot left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

clang-tidy made some suggestions

Copy link
Contributor

clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! 👍"

@AcKoucher
Copy link
Contributor Author

Running Secure-CI

@AcKoucher AcKoucher requested a review from maliberty February 11, 2025 17:47
@maliberty
Copy link
Member

Code is ok; waiting on CI to merge

@AcKoucher
Copy link
Contributor Author

AcKoucher commented Feb 12, 2025

The failure in the regression test seems to triggered by a bug that is not related to the changes here. However, it needs fixing before this PR gets merged. I'm working on it.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

mpl: the distance to boundary is wrongly computed from level != 0 inside SA
2 participants