Limits of Conventional STA
STA, while very successful, has a number of limitations:
- Cannot easily handle within-die correlation, especially if spatial correlation is included.
- Needs many corners to handle all possible cases.
- If there are significant random variations, then in order to be conservative at all times, it is too pessimistic to result in competitive products.
- Changes to address various correlation problems, such as CPPR (Common Path Pessimism Removal) make the basic algorithm slower than linear time, or non-incremental, or both.
SSTA attacks these limitations more or less directly. First, SSTA uses sensitivities to find correlations among delays. Then it uses these correlations when computing how to add statistical distributions of delays.
Interestingly, there is no technical reason why determistic STA could not be enhanced to handle correlation and sensitivities, by keeping a vector of sensitivities with each value as SSTA does. Historically, this seemed like a big burden to add to STA, whereas it was clear it was needed for SSTA, so no-one complained. See some of the criticism of SSTA below where this alternative is proposed.
Read more about this topic: Statistical Static Timing Analysis
Famous quotes containing the words limits of, limits and/or conventional:
“Mathematics alone make us feel the limits of our intelligence. For we can always suppose in the case of an experiment that it is inexplicable because we don’t happen to have all the data. In mathematics we have all the data ... and yet we don’t understand. We always come back to the contemplation of our human wretchedness. What force is in relation to our will, the impenetrable opacity of mathematics is in relation to our intelligence.”
—Simone Weil (1909–1943)
“We know then the existence and nature of the finite, because we also are finite and have extension. We know the existence of the infinite and are ignorant of its nature, because it has extension like us, but not limits like us. But we know neither the existence nor the nature of God, because he has neither extension nor limits.”
—Blaise Pascal (1623–1662)
“It is conventional to call “monster” any blending of dissonant elements.... I call “monster” every original inexhaustible beauty.”
—Alfred Jarry (1873–1907)