为什么我会使用LUT5_L而不是RLOC？

LUT5_L是一个打包约束，它告诉打包/放置工具将LUT及其负载打包在同一切片中。
这不是一个严格的约束，但被视为对包装工的暗示。
它通常由综合工具用于指导预期的包装行为。
RLOC约束的主要值是通过定义各种实例的相对偏移来约束跨越多个组件（切片或其他）的多个实例。
虽然它可以用于将多个实例约束到单个切片，但这是它的一小部分功能。
还有其他约束可用于执行相同的操作（BLKNM，LOC）。
RLOC约束是一个硬约束，这意味着如果无法遵守，您将收到包错误。
我不理解对RLOC_RANGE的引用，RLOC_RANGE是一个单独的约束，用于范围约束由RLOC约束产生的宏。
这些打包/放置限制都不会影响路由器行为，除了它们对打包和放置的明显影响。
在原帖中查看解决方案



以下为原文

The LUT5_L is a packing constraint that tells the pack/place tools to pack the LUT and its loads in the same slice. This is not a hard constraint but is treated like a hint to the packer.  It's usually used by synthesis tool to guide the intended packing behavior. The RLOC constraint's main value is to constrain multiple instances spanning multiple components (slice or otherwise) by defining relative offsets to various instances. While it can be used to constrain multiple instances to a single slice, that is a small subset of it capability. There are other constraints that can be used to do the same (BLKNM, LOC). The RLOC constraint is a hard constraint meaning that you will get a pack error if it can't be obeyed. I don't understand the references to RLOC_RANGE which is a separate constraint used to range constrain the macro that results from RLOC constraints. None of these pack/place constraints effect the router behavior other than their obvious effect on packing and placement.
View solution in original post

LUT5_L是一个打包约束，它告诉打包/放置工具将LUT及其负载打包在同一切片中。
这不是一个严格的约束，但被视为对包装工的暗示。
它通常由综合工具用于指导预期的包装行为。
RLOC约束的主要值是通过定义各种实例的相对偏移来约束跨越多个组件（切片或其他）的多个实例。
虽然它可以用于将多个实例约束到单个切片，但这是它的一小部分功能。
还有其他约束可用于执行相同的操作（BLKNM，LOC）。
RLOC约束是一个硬约束，这意味着如果无法遵守，您将收到包错误。
我不理解对RLOC_RANGE的引用，RLOC_RANGE是一个单独的约束，用于范围约束由RLOC约束产生的宏。
这些打包/放置限制都不会影响路由器行为，除了它们对打包和放置的明显影响。



以下为原文

The LUT5_L is a packing constraint that tells the pack/place tools to pack the LUT and its loads in the same slice. This is not a hard constraint but is treated like a hint to the packer.  It's usually used by synthesis tool to guide the intended packing behavior. The RLOC constraint's main value is to constrain multiple instances spanning multiple components (slice or otherwise) by defining relative offsets to various instances. While it can be used to constrain multiple instances to a single slice, that is a small subset of it capability. There are other constraints that can be used to do the same (BLKNM, LOC). The RLOC constraint is a hard constraint meaning that you will get a pack error if it can't be obeyed. I don't understand the references to RLOC_RANGE which is a separate constraint used to range constrain the macro that results from RLOC constraints. None of these pack/place constraints effect the router behavior other than their obvious effect on packing and placement.

谢谢bwade！



以下为原文

Thanks bwade!

bwade写道：
我不理解对RLOC_RANGE的引用，RLOC_RANGE是一个单独的约束，用于范围约束由RLOC约束产生的宏。
对;
使用LOC（或RLOC加RLOC_ORIGIN），您必须指定一个切片。
我得到的是CLB在Spartan-6上是两片的事实，所以如果你想让这个两个切片中的任何一个可以自由选择这两个切片 - 而不是特别强制其中一个切片 - 你需要
RLOC加上RLOC_RANGE跨越两个切片而不是RLOC + RLOC_ORIGIN。



以下为原文

bwade wrote:
I don't understand the references to RLOC_RANGE which is a separate constraint used to range constrain the macro that results from RLOC constraints.

Right; with a LOC (or RLOC plus RLOC_ORIGIN) you have to specify a slice.  What I was getting at was the fact that a CLB is two slices on Spartan-6 so if you want to leave the placer free to pick either of those two slices -- rather than force one of them in particular -- you'd need an RLOC plus an RLOC_RANGE spanning the two slices instead of a RLOC+RLOC_ORIGIN.

我建议对任何类型的区域约束使用具有范围约束的区域组。
这些是更主流的约束，可能会接受更多的测试。
您还可以选择将区域组关闭到外部逻辑。



以下为原文

I suggest using area groups with range constraints for any sort of area constraining. Those are more mainstream constraints that probably receive more testing. You also have the option of closing the area group to outside logic.