Is it possible (function or script) to calculate the % of a cell, for a given layer, that is data? Or, is it possible to calculate the square um for a layer? If I can get the square um, then its easy to calculate the % myself.
Thanks. The last DRC script in the thread works well. It does raise another question. Is it possible to increase the precision of the answer?
The product I'm working with has very little data, but a painfully precise etch. One level has only 0.2% data, but when I calculate it manually it comes to 0.225% This may seem small, but the difference (and forgive me for pointing out the obvious) between 0.2 and 0.255 is 12.5%. I must be able to report the exact value for the etch to be correct.
Can 3 (or 4) significant digits be used rather that the 1 that is being reported now?
there is actually no rounding involved. At least not one I can see. If you let the script print the absolute value of the area, is that correct or not? Maybe the cell's extension is bigger than the dimensions you assume (i.e due to layout outside the chip's border), hence the area density becomes less.
Comments
Hi Bob,
It is :-)
This question arises quite often. A frequent thread covering that topic is this one: http://klayout.de/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=25&page=1#Item_14.
You will find some information there how to use the DRC functionality for that purpose.
Regards,
Matthias
Thanks. The last DRC script in the thread works well. It does raise another question. Is it possible to increase the precision of the answer?
The product I'm working with has very little data, but a painfully precise etch. One level has only 0.2% data, but when I calculate it manually it comes to 0.225% This may seem small, but the difference (and forgive me for pointing out the obvious) between 0.2 and 0.255 is 12.5%. I must be able to report the exact value for the etch to be correct.
Can 3 (or 4) significant digits be used rather that the 1 that is being reported now?
Thanks,
Bob
Hi Bob,
there is actually no rounding involved. At least not one I can see. If you let the script print the absolute value of the area, is that correct or not? Maybe the cell's extension is bigger than the dimensions you assume (i.e due to layout outside the chip's border), hence the area density becomes less.
Matthias