Comparison of four two-dimensional gate matrix layout tools

Mary Jane Irwin, Robert Michael Owens

Research output: Contribution to journalConference article

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

A comparison of four layout tools is presented. The layout style is a two-dimensional gate matrix. The first layout tool discussed uses standard simulated annealing. Annealing on gate clusters instead of individual gates can be used to improve the layout results. Two different ways of determining good gate clusters for use in the annealing process are compared. The first way uses clusters derived from user-specified gate hierarchies, while the second determines clusters based on gate connectivity. The fourth layout tool uses a decomposition scheme based on quadrisection. Layout results for a set of benchmark circuits are presented for each of the tools. It is clear from the results that standard simulated annealing should not be used. Some form of clustering, either using composition, as is done in designer and parser generated clusters, or using decomposition, as is done in cubist, should be used. With such clustering, transistor density is more dependent on circuit regularity than on circuit size. Of the two composition-based cluster approaches, the scheme using parser outperformed designer-specified clusters. For structured circuits both designer-specified and parser-generated clusters did better than quadrisection, while for less structured circuits only parser-generated clusters gave higher transistor densities than quadrisection.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)698-701
Number of pages4
JournalProceedings - Design Automation Conference
StatePublished - Dec 1 1989
Event26th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference - Las Vegas, NV, USA
Duration: Jun 25 1989Jun 29 1989

Fingerprint

Plant layout
Networks (circuits)
Simulated annealing
Transistors
Annealing
Decomposition
Chemical analysis

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Hardware and Architecture
  • Control and Systems Engineering

Cite this

Irwin, Mary Jane ; Owens, Robert Michael. / Comparison of four two-dimensional gate matrix layout tools. In: Proceedings - Design Automation Conference. 1989 ; pp. 698-701.
@article{bdbcfb6eac024bdface3078b23b3c256,
title = "Comparison of four two-dimensional gate matrix layout tools",
abstract = "A comparison of four layout tools is presented. The layout style is a two-dimensional gate matrix. The first layout tool discussed uses standard simulated annealing. Annealing on gate clusters instead of individual gates can be used to improve the layout results. Two different ways of determining good gate clusters for use in the annealing process are compared. The first way uses clusters derived from user-specified gate hierarchies, while the second determines clusters based on gate connectivity. The fourth layout tool uses a decomposition scheme based on quadrisection. Layout results for a set of benchmark circuits are presented for each of the tools. It is clear from the results that standard simulated annealing should not be used. Some form of clustering, either using composition, as is done in designer and parser generated clusters, or using decomposition, as is done in cubist, should be used. With such clustering, transistor density is more dependent on circuit regularity than on circuit size. Of the two composition-based cluster approaches, the scheme using parser outperformed designer-specified clusters. For structured circuits both designer-specified and parser-generated clusters did better than quadrisection, while for less structured circuits only parser-generated clusters gave higher transistor densities than quadrisection.",
author = "Irwin, {Mary Jane} and Owens, {Robert Michael}",
year = "1989",
month = "12",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
pages = "698--701",
journal = "Proceedings - Design Automation Conference",
issn = "0738-100X",

}

Comparison of four two-dimensional gate matrix layout tools. / Irwin, Mary Jane; Owens, Robert Michael.

In: Proceedings - Design Automation Conference, 01.12.1989, p. 698-701.

Research output: Contribution to journalConference article

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of four two-dimensional gate matrix layout tools

AU - Irwin, Mary Jane

AU - Owens, Robert Michael

PY - 1989/12/1

Y1 - 1989/12/1

N2 - A comparison of four layout tools is presented. The layout style is a two-dimensional gate matrix. The first layout tool discussed uses standard simulated annealing. Annealing on gate clusters instead of individual gates can be used to improve the layout results. Two different ways of determining good gate clusters for use in the annealing process are compared. The first way uses clusters derived from user-specified gate hierarchies, while the second determines clusters based on gate connectivity. The fourth layout tool uses a decomposition scheme based on quadrisection. Layout results for a set of benchmark circuits are presented for each of the tools. It is clear from the results that standard simulated annealing should not be used. Some form of clustering, either using composition, as is done in designer and parser generated clusters, or using decomposition, as is done in cubist, should be used. With such clustering, transistor density is more dependent on circuit regularity than on circuit size. Of the two composition-based cluster approaches, the scheme using parser outperformed designer-specified clusters. For structured circuits both designer-specified and parser-generated clusters did better than quadrisection, while for less structured circuits only parser-generated clusters gave higher transistor densities than quadrisection.

AB - A comparison of four layout tools is presented. The layout style is a two-dimensional gate matrix. The first layout tool discussed uses standard simulated annealing. Annealing on gate clusters instead of individual gates can be used to improve the layout results. Two different ways of determining good gate clusters for use in the annealing process are compared. The first way uses clusters derived from user-specified gate hierarchies, while the second determines clusters based on gate connectivity. The fourth layout tool uses a decomposition scheme based on quadrisection. Layout results for a set of benchmark circuits are presented for each of the tools. It is clear from the results that standard simulated annealing should not be used. Some form of clustering, either using composition, as is done in designer and parser generated clusters, or using decomposition, as is done in cubist, should be used. With such clustering, transistor density is more dependent on circuit regularity than on circuit size. Of the two composition-based cluster approaches, the scheme using parser outperformed designer-specified clusters. For structured circuits both designer-specified and parser-generated clusters did better than quadrisection, while for less structured circuits only parser-generated clusters gave higher transistor densities than quadrisection.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0024913168&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0024913168&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Conference article

AN - SCOPUS:0024913168

SP - 698

EP - 701

JO - Proceedings - Design Automation Conference

JF - Proceedings - Design Automation Conference

SN - 0738-100X

ER -