Error with multi-cut examples of restistor in MOCMOS tech

[Alexandre Rusev]

Converted MOCMOS tech to library, then removed scalable and NPN transistors

and and encountered the same issue for *all* resistors:

Number of cut-s supposed to be different for different size-of-resistor examples due to infer scaling rules for amount of vias later.

But current implementation of associateExamples(...) verifies that number of instances of "similar layer" is  the same in all examples.

This equality  is  intentionally NOT right for cuts in resistor examples , and possibly also not right for vias in case of capacitors

What is right approach to fix it?

Cell node-Hi-Res-Poly2-Resistor{lay}, node artwork:Filled-Box[art@23]: Layer Poly-Cut found 2 times in main example, 6 in others
Failed to convert the library to a technology

private boolean associateExamples(List<Example> neList, Cell np)

{
// if there is only one example, no association
if (neList.size() <= 1) return false;

// associate each example "ne" with the original in "neList"
Example firstEx = neList.get(0);
for(int n=1; n<neList.size(); n++)
{
Example ne = neList.get(n);

// clear associations for every sample "ns" in the example "ne"
for(Sample ns : ne.samples)
ns.assoc = null;

// associate every sample "ns" in the example "ne"
for(Sample ns : ne.samples)
{
if (ns.assoc != null) continue;

// cannot have center in other examples
if (ns.layer == Generic.tech().cellCenterNode)
{
error.markError(ns.node, np, "Grab point should only be in main example");
return true;
}

// count number of similar layers in original example "neList"
int total = 0;
Sample nsFound = null;
for(Sample nsList : firstEx.samples)
{
if (nsList.layer != ns.layer) continue;
total++;
nsFound = nsList;
}

// no similar layer found in the original: error
if (total == 0)
{
error.markError(ns.node, np, "Layer " + Info.getSampleName(ns.layer) + " not found in main example");
return true;
}

// just one in the original: simple association
if (total == 1)
{
ns.assoc = nsFound;
continue;
}

// if it is a port, associate by port name
if (ns.layer == Generic.tech().portNode)
{
String name = Info.getPortName(ns.node);
if (name == null)
{
error.markError(ns.node, np, "Port does not have a name");
return true;
}

// search the original for that port
boolean found = false;
for(Sample nsList : firstEx.samples)
{
if (nsList.layer == Generic.tech().portNode)
{
String otherName = Info.getPortName(nsList.node);
if (otherName == null)
{
error.markError(nsList.node, np, "Port does not have a name");
return true;
}
if (!name.equalsIgnoreCase(otherName)) continue;
ns.assoc = nsList;
found = true;
break;
}
}
if (!found)
{
error.markError(null, np, "Could not find port " + name + " in all examples");
return true;
}
continue;
}

// count the number of this layer in example "ne"
int i = 0;
for(Sample nsList : ne.samples)
{
if (nsList.layer == ns.layer) i++;
}

// if number of similar layers differs: error
if (total != i)
{
error.markError(ns.node, np, "Layer " + Info.getSampleName(ns.layer) +
" found " + total + " times in main example, " + i + " in others");
return true;

}

[Steven Rubin]

You need to understand that the "Technology Editor" (one of three ways to define a technology) is limited because it uses graphical examples to describe the shape rules. It does not understand examples where the number of cuts grows, and I believe it uses other methods to determine this phenomenon. But in the long run, when you need specialized technology features, the Technology Editor is not able to help anymore. The "Technology Creation Wizard" is also limited. But the third way to edit a technology is to hand edit the XML, and that is how you can get those unusual rules included.

   -Steven Rubin

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Electric VLSI Editor" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to electricvlsi...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/electricvlsi/CACoSTqKzJ5iWzrKqswbpnH_pnqmNMjB0bwLeP0eG1WC1EJM8HA%40mail.gmail.com.

[Adam Joseph]

On Sat, 28 Nov 2020 08:51:02 -0800
Steven Rubin <str...@staticfreesoft.com> wrote:
> But in the long run, when you need specialized technology features,
> the Technology Editor is not able to help anymore. The "Technology
> Creation Wizard" is also limited.

This has been my experience too -- I could not agree more.

- a