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

Updated SpyGlass backend to support features in Synopsys Spyglass v2023.12 #449

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

amal-araweelo
Copy link

@amal-araweelo amal-araweelo commented Nov 1, 2024

This pull request introduces enhancements to the Spyglass backend in the Edalize project. The key changes include:

Support generalized SystemVerilog source files:

  • Updated the project file generation to support SystemVerilog without version limits (previously just SV09)

Extending support of constraint file types

  • Added support SpyGlass Design Constraint files (.sgdc)

Support for set_goal_option

  • Implemented functionality for set_goal_options

This resolves the issue I opened (#444)

Added new tool_option (goal_options)
Added goal_options section. Also, in the section where the SystemVerilog (SV09) support is configured, it has been changed to SV for flexibility and generalization
@amal-araweelo
Copy link
Author

@olofk is Edalize no longer in development, or?

@@ -14,7 +14,7 @@

class Spyglass(Edatool):

_description = """ Synopsys (formerly Atrenta) Spyglass Backend
_description = """ Synopsys Spyglass Backend (v2023.12)
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why is the version hardcoded in the description here?

@olofk
Copy link
Owner

olofk commented Nov 4, 2024

The patch looks mostly fine from a quick look but there are some issues, like the hardcoded version string. The test cases also aren't updated, so the tests are failing now.

I also need to inform that this backend uses the old Tool API instead of the new Flow API, and I'm a bit hesitant towards making updates to the old backends. I would much prefer if it was instead rewritten to use the new Flow API.

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.

2 participants