par 13.1丢弃了一些交换机可能是bug？

如果使用-timing选项运行map，则放置由map完成。
由于成本表选项-t仅影响放置，因此交换机与PAR无关，PAR仅在此方案中进行路由。
我没有看到你的附件，所以我不太确定发生了什么，但它听起来并不比不一致的消息更严重。



以下为原文

If you are running map with the -timing option then the placement is done by map. Since the cost table option -t only affects placement, the switch is irrelevant to PAR which only does routing in this scenario. I don't see your attachment so I'm not quite sure what is going on, but it doesn't sound any more serious than inconsistent messaging.

感谢回复，
问题是何时不使用-timing。
在这种情况下，par将始终使用默认设置（-t 1）并忽略正在传递的-t参数。
我再次尝试附加示例项目。
本
test_par131.zip 73 KB



以下为原文

Thanks for replying,
The problem is when -timing is NOT used. In this case par will always use the default setting (-t 1) and disregards the -t argument that is being passed.
I try attaching the sample project once again.
Ben
            test_par131.zip ‏73 KB

在转到13.1版本时，Xilinx可能会忽略一些旧设备
对于较新的设备（自V4起），-timing选项不可用，地图将始终可用
放置以及切片包装。
所以对于那些设备，-t选项毫无意义
相提并论
您可能希望恢复为Spartan 3系列的旧版ISE。
12.4应该
工作得很好。
-  Gabor
-  Gabor



以下为原文

It's possible that Xilinx overlooked some of the older devices when going to version 13.1
For newer devices (since V4) the -timing option is not available and map will always do
the placement as well as slice packing.  So for those devices the -t option makes no sense
to par.  You may want to revert to an older version of ISE for the Spartan 3 series.  12.4 should
work well.
 
-- Gabor
-- Gabor

我有很多项目，我试图从10.1.03迁移，其中一切都按预期工作。
这些是嵌入式项目，出于某些原因我希望它们迁移。
我不能使用10.1和13.1之间的任何版本，因为我没有这些版本的许可证所以我宁愿等待修复。
这是我们支付许可证的软件，只要设备受到支持，这被证明是一个错误，我认为我们有权要求修复错误。
因此，使用旧版本是不可能的。
我可以解决这些问题，但只需要花费更多的时间进行成本表搜索并满足时间要求。
本



以下为原文

I have a number of projects which I am trying to migrate from 10.1.03 where everything works as expected. Those are embedded projects which for some good reasons I want them migrated. I can't use any version between 10.1 and 13.1 because I don't have the license for those versions so I would rather wait to get this fixed.
This is software for which we paid a licence and as long as the devices are supported and this proves to be a bug I think we have the right to request the bug to be fixed. So, using an older version is out of question.
I can workaround those problems but it just takes a lot more time to do a cost table search and to meet the timing.
Ben