Synthesis & Logic Optimization · All levels

Synthesis SDC Contracts: Comparison Matrix

Comparison Matrix for Synthesis SDC Contracts.

Comparison matrix

Constraint and policy choices trade closure speed against regression risk.

diagram
+------------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Approach         | Strength       | Weakness       | Best when      |
+------------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+
| Conservative     | stable         | slower         | new design spin |
| Balanced         | practical      | needs monitoring | normal closure |
| Aggressive       | fast           | higher risk    | schedule crunch |
| Structural       | durable        | long loop      | repeat offender |
+------------------+----------------+----------------+----------------+

When to choose each approach

  • Select strategy by risk budget, not convenience.

Interview traps

  • Skipping manifest diff

  • No side-effect regression

Evidence comparison

diagram
SYNTHESIS EVIDENCE MATRIX — Synthesis SDC Contracts

+--------------------+------------------------+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| Evidence            | Tells you              | Does not prove           | Next action             |
+--------------------+------------------------+--------------------------+-------------------------+
| compile QoR report  | metric movement        | root-cause class         | inspect transform logs  |
| SDC diff            | constraint drift       | library quality          | rerun with baseline SDC |
| library map diff    | cell view changes      | RTL intent quality       | lock/validate lib set   |
| topo vs logical QoR | physical correlation   | final route signoff      | PD trial correlation    |
| regression matrix   | closure stability      | architecture optimality  | decide merge/rollback   |
+--------------------+------------------------+--------------------------+-------------------------+

Synthesis deep dive

Constraint hygiene determines whether synthesis QoR is trustworthy.

Concept diagram

diagram
CONSTRAINT FLOW

RTL intent -> synthesis SDC -> compile checks -> QoR dashboard -> review gate

Metric graph

diagram
QOR HEALTH

constraint lint pass   ███████████████
unconstrained count    ███
policy violations      ██

Reports and artifacts

  • compile QoR

  • unconstrained endpoints

  • constraint lint

  • policy audit log

Mini case study

Nightly WNS improved but unconstrained paths jumped; strict SDC lint restored true QoR picture.

Debug branches

  • Diff SDC first

  • Audit dont_touch scope

  • Track unconstrained trend weekly

Senior review question

Ask: what evidence proves this QoR move is real and stable?

Key takeaways

  • State exact run context (RTL, SDC, libs, switches) with every QoR claim.

  • Re-run timing, area, and power regressions after each synthesis ECO.

Common pitfalls

  • Comparing runs with mismatched constraints or library views.

  • Timing-only fixes that violate power or area budgets.

  • Skipping equivalence checks after structural changes.

Principal synthesis review addendum

Synthesis SDC defines clocks, IO assumptions, and optimization boundaries; weak constraints produce fake QoR wins and expensive downstream churn.

Metric: compile WNS/TNS, unconstrained endpoint count, SDC lint error rate