Hi. When I use asap7sc7p5t_27 for PnR using Cadence Innovus, I found that when reading the tech lef asap7_tech_4x_201209.lef, Innovus reports a warning as follows, complaining potential ambiguity of the definition of overhang values.
**WARN: (IMPLF-290):The ENCLOSURE statement in layer 'V3' has the syntax
for overhang values without END/SIDE keywords but contains CUTCLASS attribute
and the cut defined in the CUTCLASS is rectangular. The new syntax 'END
overhang1 SIDE overhang2' should be used in this case. Without the END/SIDE
keywords, the larger value is assigned as end overhang and smaller value is
assigned as side overhange.
And the number of enclosure drc violations after routing is weirdly large compare with other types of violations, as is shown in the following screenshot. Moreover, I found that enc violations densely occurs on layer V3 and V5.
Besides, I checked the ENCLOSURE statement in asap7_tech_4x_201209.lef and find that is does not fit the format in LEF/DEF 5.8 Language Reference.
Would you please help check this issue? Thanks a lot!
Hi. When I use asap7sc7p5t_27 for PnR using Cadence Innovus, I found that when reading the tech lef asap7_tech_4x_201209.lef, Innovus reports a warning as follows, complaining potential ambiguity of the definition of overhang values.
And the number of enclosure drc violations after routing is weirdly large compare with other types of violations, as is shown in the following screenshot. Moreover, I found that enc violations densely occurs on layer V3 and V5.
Besides, I checked the ENCLOSURE statement in asap7_tech_4x_201209.lef and find that is does not fit the format in LEF/DEF 5.8 Language Reference.
Would you please help check this issue? Thanks a lot!