Datasets:
question string | answer string | source_file string | module_name string | tool_name string | tool_parameters list | tool_result string | category string | subcategory string | difficulty string | question_hash string | stage1_target string | stage2_context string | plan_id string | design_id string | split string | writer_model string | n_calls int64 | ctx_cap int64 | source dict |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
For the axil_cdc module, how do the current delay and power results compare with what the delay-focused optimization suggests could be achieved, and what cell-level structure underlies those numbers? | Synthesis currently reports a delay of 61.56 and power of 0.002 for axil_cdc, built from just 2 cells (one axil_cdc_rd and one axil_cdc_wr) with 42 wires. The delay-targeted optimization estimates it could reduce delay by -20.0 percent, at the cost of about 10.0 percent more area and 5.0 percent higher power, suggestin... | github_repos/corundum_corundum/fpga/lib/axi/rtl/axil_cdc.v | axil_cdc | optimization_advisor+synthesis_tool | [
{
"target_metric": "delay"
},
{
"optimization_level": "medium"
}
] | [optimization_advisor {"target_metric": "delay"}]
{
"status": "success",
"target_metric": "delay",
"recommended_recipes": [
"synth -top axil_cdc",
"opt -fast",
"abc -fast -liberty stdcells.lib",
"opt_clean"
],
"optimization_suggestions": [
{
"type": "pipeline_insertion",
"descr... | multi_tool | optimization_advisor+synthesis_tool | compositional | 60acd4b6a528 | [{"tool": "optimization_advisor", "parameters": {"target_metric": "delay"}}, {"tool": "synthesis_tool", "parameters": {"optimization_level": "medium"}}] | Question: For the axil_cdc module, how do the current delay and power results compare with what the delay-focused optimization suggests could be achieved, and what cell-level structure underlies those numbers?
[optimization_advisor {"target_metric": "delay"}]
{
"status": "success",
"target_metric": "delay",
"rec... | 4a0836c05f98 | 005dc1828524 | train | glm-5.3 | 2 | 3,300 | {
"repository": "https://github.com/corundum/corundum",
"commit": "1ca0151b97af85aa5dd306d74b6bcec65904d2ce",
"path": "fpga/lib/axi/rtl/axil_cdc.v",
"sha256": "fbb8018e34b7173e9a8de97c9e70be092abbb9a581dc83ec037561f401d11edb"
} |
For the ct_lsu_lm module, how complex is the design structurally, and what delay-focused optimization is recommended, including the expected trade-offs? | ct_lsu_lm has 426 lines of code, cyclomatic complexity 53, nesting depth 10, and 2166 operators, with 34 inputs and 16 outputs across 50 total ports. A delay optimization is recommended with an estimated delay improvement of -20.0 at the cost of 10.0 area increase and 5.0 power increase, suggesting pipelining arithmeti... | github_repos/XUANTIE-RV_openc910/C910_RTL_FACTORY/gen_rtl/lsu/rtl/ct_lsu_lm.v | ct_lsu_lm | optimization_advisor+static_analyzer | [
{
"target_metric": "delay"
},
{
"analysis_type": "full"
}
] | [optimization_advisor {"target_metric": "delay"}]
{
"status": "success",
"target_metric": "delay",
"recommended_recipes": [
"synth -top ct_lsu_lm",
"opt -fast",
"abc -fast -liberty stdcells.lib",
"opt_clean"
],
"optimization_suggestions": [
{
"type": "pipeline_insertion",
"desc... | multi_tool | optimization_advisor+static_analyzer | compositional | 1332462ee20a | [{"tool": "optimization_advisor", "parameters": {"target_metric": "delay"}}, {"tool": "static_analyzer", "parameters": {"analysis_type": "full"}}] | Question: For the ct_lsu_lm module, how complex is the design structurally, and what delay-focused optimization is recommended, including the expected trade-offs?
[optimization_advisor {"target_metric": "delay"}]
{
"status": "success",
"target_metric": "delay",
"recommended_recipes": [
"synth -top ct_lsu_lm"... | 1d3b77f2b4e7 | 0036dd6de909 | train | glm-5.3 | 2 | 3,300 | {
"repository": "https://github.com/XUANTIE-RV/openc910",
"commit": "b91c90914c19f114d35c8f6b73408eb241ed847c",
"path": "C910_RTL_FACTORY/gen_rtl/lsu/rtl/ct_lsu_lm.v",
"sha256": "983cea5f7ee969d1794e5b59c4eb237f61bb3ad9abf06b63fd26101fb930d8d4"
} |
For system_top, I'd like a quick consistency check: how do the port counts and complexity look, and do the unmapped RTL signals from the RTL-to-netlist mapping match what the DFG shows for the ADC I/O buffers? | The static analysis reports 27 total ports (3 inputs, 5 outputs, 19 inouts) with cyclomatic complexity 1 and 393 operators over 109 lines of code, while the mapping found 11 of 14 RTL signals mapped (alignment score 78.57) with adc_gpio_o, adc_gpio_i, and adc_gpio_t unmapped. The DFG for system_top has 37 nodes and 373... | github_repos/analogdevicesinc_hdl/projects/cn0579/coraz7s/system_top.v | system_top | cross_stage_mapper+graph_extractor+static_analyzer | [
{},
{
"graph_type": "DFG"
},
{
"analysis_type": "full"
}
] | [cross_stage_mapper {}]
{
"status": "success",
"rtl_to_netlist_mapping": {
"adc_gpio_o": [],
"adc_gpio_i": [],
"shutdown_n": [
"shutdown_n"
],
"spi_clk": [
"spi_clk"
],
"ready_in": [
"ready_in"
],
"gpio_i": [
"gpio_i"
],
"clk_in": [
...[13 ch... | multi_tool | cross_stage_mapper+graph_extractor+static_analyzer | compositional | 1987004535d6 | [{"tool": "cross_stage_mapper", "parameters": {}}, {"tool": "graph_extractor", "parameters": {"graph_type": "DFG"}}, {"tool": "static_analyzer", "parameters": {"analysis_type": "full"}}] | Question: For system_top, I'd like a quick consistency check: how do the port counts and complexity look, and do the unmapped RTL signals from the RTL-to-netlist mapping match what the DFG shows for the ADC I/O buffers?
[cross_stage_mapper {}]
{
"status": "success",
"rtl_to_netlist_mapping": {
"adc_gpio_o": []... | a365488d4e73 | 00400c8da762 | train | glm-5.3 | 3 | 3,300 | {
"repository": "https://github.com/analogdevicesinc/hdl",
"commit": "c9a501d87a420d2e28aa9d931557bdb4122f3c4f",
"path": "projects/cn0579/coraz7s/system_top.v",
"sha256": "a0589de5035cc348a8366ea68af9e6c09894c682f7bb609204d4b0e6194cffa7"
} |
For the axis_rate_limit module, given the RTL-to-netlist mapping results and the power-focused optimization analysis, summarize how well the RTL signals carried through to the netlist and what power improvement could be expected if the recommended clock-gating and operand-isolation changes were applied. | In the mapping for axis_rate_limit, 23 of the 36 RTL signals were mapped while 13 remained unmapped, giving an alignment score of 63.89. The power optimization analysis recommends clock gating and operand isolation and estimates a power improvement of -25.0, though with trade-offs such as possible area overhead and add... | github_repos/alexforencich_verilog-ethernet/lib/axis/rtl/axis_rate_limit.v | axis_rate_limit | cross_stage_mapper+optimization_advisor | [
{},
{
"target_metric": "power"
}
] | [cross_stage_mapper {}]
{
"status": "success",
"rtl_to_netlist_mapping": {
"s_axis_tready_reg": [],
"rst": [
"rst"
],
"wire": [],
"clk": [
"clk"
],
"m_axis_tvalid": [
"m_axis_tvalid_int",
"m_axis_tvalid",
"m_axis_tvalid_next",
"temp_m_axis_tvalid_next"... | multi_tool | cross_stage_mapper+optimization_advisor | compositional | afdbb95498ce | [{"tool": "cross_stage_mapper", "parameters": {}}, {"tool": "optimization_advisor", "parameters": {"target_metric": "power"}}] | Question: For the axis_rate_limit module, given the RTL-to-netlist mapping results and the power-focused optimization analysis, summarize how well the RTL signals carried through to the netlist and what power improvement could be expected if the recommended clock-gating and operand-isolation changes were applied.
[cro... | 2c4348697af2 | 003256a861cd | train | glm-5.3 | 2 | 3,300 | {
"repository": "https://github.com/alexforencich/verilog-ethernet",
"commit": "77320a9471d19c7dd383914bc049e02d9f4f1ffb",
"path": "lib/axis/rtl/axis_rate_limit.v",
"sha256": "bdfb4e29768c5224c543098765b8d648f3fe774eb42643c289d85b446414d155"
} |
For the fec_rot_1 module, how does the number of XOR nodes in its CDFG compare to the gate-level implementation after medium-level optimization, and what are the resulting area, delay, and power figures? | The CDFG of fec_rot_1 contains 4 $xor nodes among its 6 total nodes with 12 edges, and after medium-level optimization this maps directly to 4 $_XOR_ gates, matching the cell breakdown exactly. The synthesized design reports an area of 8.0, a delay (critical path estimate) of 121.26, and a power of 0.004. There are als... | github_repos/pConst_basic_verilog/Advanced Synthesis Cookbook/ethernet_fec/fec_rot_1.v | fec_rot_1 | graph_extractor+synthesis_tool | [
{
"graph_type": "CDFG"
},
{
"optimization_level": "medium"
}
] | [graph_extractor {"graph_type": "CDFG"}]
{
"status": "success",
"graph_type": "CDFG",
"nodes": [
{
"id": "$<tmp>:111$xor$2",
"type": "$xor",
"attributes": {
"src": "<tmp>:111.5-111.18"
},
"parameters": {
"A_SIGNED": "00000000000000000000000000000000",
"A_W... | multi_tool | graph_extractor+synthesis_tool | compositional | a7ec5ee79a4a | [{"tool": "graph_extractor", "parameters": {"graph_type": "CDFG"}}, {"tool": "synthesis_tool", "parameters": {"optimization_level": "medium"}}] | Question: For the fec_rot_1 module, how does the number of XOR nodes in its CDFG compare to the gate-level implementation after medium-level optimization, and what are the resulting area, delay, and power figures?
[graph_extractor {"graph_type": "CDFG"}]
{
"status": "success",
"graph_type": "CDFG",
"nodes": [
... | 26599f3db7a2 | 01156403d141 | train | glm-5.3 | 2 | 3,300 | {
"repository": "https://github.com/pConst/basic_verilog",
"commit": "2654273b2c4e556a98e806f3a19b52c9b3c74614",
"path": "Advanced Synthesis Cookbook/ethernet_fec/fec_rot_1.v",
"sha256": "04d729f6f74fafdde4b7e83036d676103e79f8b74efc62ec7f6d041806f82289"
} |
For the module fec_rot_1, the CDFG analysis shows four $xor operators feeding the output port β how do those operators relate to each other, and if I apply the recommended area optimization with resource sharing, what improvement can I expect and what trade-off should I watch for? | The CDFG for fec_rot_1 has 6 nodes and 12 edges (average degree 2.0), with four $xor operators plus one input and one output port, so sharing those XORs via the suggested resource_sharing recipe ('share -aggressive') is the natural fit. The area-targeted optimization estimates an area improvement of -15.0 and power of ... | github_repos/pConst_basic_verilog/Advanced Synthesis Cookbook/ethernet_fec/fec_rot_1.v | fec_rot_1 | graph_extractor+optimization_advisor | [
{
"graph_type": "CDFG"
},
{
"target_metric": "area"
}
] | [graph_extractor {"graph_type": "CDFG"}]
{
"status": "success",
"graph_type": "CDFG",
"nodes": [
{
"id": "$<tmp>:111$xor$2",
"type": "$xor",
"attributes": {
"src": "<tmp>:111.5-111.18"
},
"parameters": {
"A_SIGNED": "00000000000000000000000000000000",
"A_W... | multi_tool | graph_extractor+optimization_advisor | compositional | 6330c21264e2 | [{"tool": "graph_extractor", "parameters": {"graph_type": "CDFG"}}, {"tool": "optimization_advisor", "parameters": {"target_metric": "area"}}] | Question: For the module fec_rot_1, the CDFG analysis shows four $xor operators feeding the output port β how do those operators relate to each other, and if I apply the recommended area optimization with resource sharing, what improvement can I expect and what trade-off should I watch for?
[graph_extractor {"graph_ty... | 294b843cc11c | 01156403d141 | train | glm-5.3 | 2 | 3,300 | {
"repository": "https://github.com/pConst/basic_verilog",
"commit": "2654273b2c4e556a98e806f3a19b52c9b3c74614",
"path": "Advanced Synthesis Cookbook/ethernet_fec/fec_rot_1.v",
"sha256": "04d729f6f74fafdde4b7e83036d676103e79f8b74efc62ec7f6d041806f82289"
} |
For the axis_switch module, can you summarize its RTL structure and how well that structure carried over to the netlist, including its complexity, its port and signal makeup, and how many RTL signals actually mapped to netlist wires? | The axis_switch RTL has 318 lines of code with cyclomatic complexity 48, nesting depth 37, and 526 operators, and it exposes 23 ports total (12 inputs and 11 outputs) with 4 wires and 4 regs. In the cross-stage mapping, only 4 of the 12 RTL signals mapped to the netlist (which contains 6701 netlist wires), leaving 8 un... | github_repos/alexforencich_verilog-ethernet/lib/axis/rtl/axis_switch.v | axis_switch | cross_stage_mapper+static_analyzer | [
{},
{
"analysis_type": "full"
}
] | [cross_stage_mapper {}]
{
"status": "success",
"rtl_to_netlist_mapping": {
"grant_valid": [],
"rst": [
"rst"
],
"wire": [],
"tid": [
"s_axis_tid",
"int_s_axis_tid",
"m_axis_tid"
],
"clk": [
"clk"
],
"m_axis_tvalid_mux": [],
"m_axis_tready_mux": [... | multi_tool | cross_stage_mapper+static_analyzer | compositional | 4f9481211897 | [{"tool": "cross_stage_mapper", "parameters": {}}, {"tool": "static_analyzer", "parameters": {"analysis_type": "full"}}] | Question: For the axis_switch module, can you summarize its RTL structure and how well that structure carried over to the netlist, including its complexity, its port and signal makeup, and how many RTL signals actually mapped to netlist wires?
[cross_stage_mapper {}]
{
"status": "success",
"rtl_to_netlist_mapping"... | 1b8cf0787368 | 019f0b716455 | train | glm-5.3 | 2 | 3,300 | {
"repository": "https://github.com/alexforencich/verilog-ethernet",
"commit": "77320a9471d19c7dd383914bc049e02d9f4f1ffb",
"path": "lib/axis/rtl/axis_switch.v",
"sha256": "ccfe5eb62d5fead748bca36f22a0012599af46d2ec486c1bb091308234510e6f"
} |
For the axis_arb_mux module, how do its complexity characteristics relate to the delay-optimization recommendations, and is the suggested trade-off acceptable given the module's size? | The axis_arb_mux module is fairly large and complex, with 239 lines of code, cyclomatic complexity 21, 352 operators, 32 total ports, and 4 always blocks, which supports the delay-focused suggestions to pipeline arithmetic via register retiming and duplicate logic to cut fanout. The estimated improvement is a 20.0% del... | github_repos/corundum_corundum/fpga/lib/eth/lib/axis/rtl/axis_arb_mux.v | axis_arb_mux | optimization_advisor+static_analyzer | [
{
"target_metric": "delay"
},
{
"analysis_type": "full"
}
] | [optimization_advisor {"target_metric": "delay"}]
{
"status": "success",
"target_metric": "delay",
"recommended_recipes": [
"synth -top axis_arb_mux",
"opt -fast",
"abc -fast -liberty stdcells.lib",
"opt_clean"
],
"optimization_suggestions": [
{
"type": "pipeline_insertion",
"d... | multi_tool | optimization_advisor+static_analyzer | compositional | 588fb259da3a | [{"tool": "optimization_advisor", "parameters": {"target_metric": "delay"}}, {"tool": "static_analyzer", "parameters": {"analysis_type": "full"}}] | Question: For the axis_arb_mux module, how do its complexity characteristics relate to the delay-optimization recommendations, and is the suggested trade-off acceptable given the module's size?
[optimization_advisor {"target_metric": "delay"}]
{
"status": "success",
"target_metric": "delay",
"recommended_recipes... | ed0be9b2b62b | 01ff01fee60e | train | glm-5.3 | 2 | 3,300 | {
"repository": "https://github.com/corundum/corundum",
"commit": "1ca0151b97af85aa5dd306d74b6bcec65904d2ce",
"path": "fpga/lib/eth/lib/axis/rtl/axis_arb_mux.v",
"sha256": "2e71c10f54a03375e7b9e2f6ae559a0c122715297d6db75a764c0db70701108b"
} |
For the module mac_pause_ctrl_rx, how do its structural complexity from the full static analysis and its synthesized implementation characteristics compare β is the design control-heavy or datapath-heavy, and what does that imply for its area and delay-optimized synthesis results? | mac_pause_ctrl_rx is clearly control-heavy: with only 245 $_SDFF_PP0_ flops out of 2765 total cells and 832 $_AND_ plus 746 $_NAND gates dominating the combinational logic, most silicon goes to random control logic rather than datapath. This matches the source-level view of 2 always blocks, 10 assign statements, cyclom... | github_repos/alexforencich_verilog-ethernet/rtl/mac_pause_ctrl_rx.v | mac_pause_ctrl_rx | static_analyzer+synthesis_tool | [
{
"analysis_type": "full"
},
{
"optimization_level": "medium"
}
] | [static_analyzer {"analysis_type": "full"}]
{
"status": "success",
"module_name": "mac_pause_ctrl_rx",
"port_count": {
"inputs": 18,
"outputs": 10,
"inouts": 0,
"total": 28
},
"signal_count": {
"wires": 27,
"regs": 8,
"parameters": 3,
"total": 35
},
"always_blocks": 2,
"a... | multi_tool | static_analyzer+synthesis_tool | compositional | a5a069407599 | [{"tool": "static_analyzer", "parameters": {"analysis_type": "full"}}, {"tool": "synthesis_tool", "parameters": {"optimization_level": "medium"}}] | Question: For the module mac_pause_ctrl_rx, how do its structural complexity from the full static analysis and its synthesized implementation characteristics compare β is the design control-heavy or datapath-heavy, and what does that imply for its area and delay-optimized synthesis results?
[static_analyzer {"analysis... | ac063545a201 | 0208353faf8d | train | glm-5.3 | 2 | 3,300 | {
"repository": "https://github.com/alexforencich/verilog-ethernet",
"commit": "77320a9471d19c7dd383914bc049e02d9f4f1ffb",
"path": "rtl/mac_pause_ctrl_rx.v",
"sha256": "4b8d5d985fe5e7d3ec28f0c70a8c212fb7b3df6548cbf4dcaac2473a23b24a57"
} |
For the uclock module, how does the structure seen in the AIG graph of the instantiated RAM block relate to the complexity metrics reported by the static analysis, and is there anything in the lint results to worry about? | The uclock module instantiates a single RAMB16_S18 in the AIG, giving 4 nodes and 50 edges with an average degree of 12.5, while the static analysis shows only 2 inputs and 1 output (3 ports total), 0 always blocks and 0 assign statements, with a cyclomatic complexity of 1 across 88 lines of code and 222 operators. The... | github_repos/pConst_basic_verilog/pacoblaze-2.2/pacoblaze/uclock.v | uclock | graph_extractor+static_analyzer | [
{
"graph_type": "AIG"
},
{
"analysis_type": "full"
}
] | [graph_extractor {"graph_type": "AIG"}]
{
"status": "success",
"graph_type": "AIG",
"nodes": [
{
"id": "ram_1024_x_18",
"type": "RAMB16_S18",
"attributes": {
"module_not_derived": "00000000000000000000000000000001",
"src": "<tmp>:5.12-15.9"
},
"parameters": {}
... | multi_tool | graph_extractor+static_analyzer | compositional | 4a1f5d39d850 | [{"tool": "graph_extractor", "parameters": {"graph_type": "AIG"}}, {"tool": "static_analyzer", "parameters": {"analysis_type": "full"}}] | Question: For the uclock module, how does the structure seen in the AIG graph of the instantiated RAM block relate to the complexity metrics reported by the static analysis, and is there anything in the lint results to worry about?
[graph_extractor {"graph_type": "AIG"}]
{
"status": "success",
"graph_type": "AIG",... | 16eff6067783 | 0234b1c0fe61 | train | glm-5.3 | 2 | 3,300 | {
"repository": "https://github.com/pConst/basic_verilog",
"commit": "2654273b2c4e556a98e806f3a19b52c9b3c74614",
"path": "pacoblaze-2.2/pacoblaze/uclock.v",
"sha256": "2a73beb76a7f2b364f8e18047a7dcf71f3bda1a07dd772ae1dd9ec6acc40b118"
} |
For the uclock module, how does the area optimization trade off against delay and power, and how does that relate to the structure shown in its AIG graph? | The AIG for uclock contains 4 nodes and 50 edges with an average degree of 12.5, including a single RAMB16_S18 block, 2 input ports, and 1 output port. Running the recommended area optimization flow (such as flatten, share -aggressive, and opt_clean -purge) is estimated to improve area by -15.0 and power by -10.0, but ... | github_repos/pConst_basic_verilog/pacoblaze-2.2/pacoblaze/uclock.v | uclock | graph_extractor+optimization_advisor | [
{
"graph_type": "AIG"
},
{
"target_metric": "area"
}
] | [graph_extractor {"graph_type": "AIG"}]
{
"status": "success",
"graph_type": "AIG",
"nodes": [
{
"id": "ram_1024_x_18",
"type": "RAMB16_S18",
"attributes": {
"module_not_derived": "00000000000000000000000000000001",
"src": "<tmp>:5.12-15.9"
},
"parameters": {}
... | multi_tool | graph_extractor+optimization_advisor | compositional | 9818df2d111d | [{"tool": "graph_extractor", "parameters": {"graph_type": "AIG"}}, {"tool": "optimization_advisor", "parameters": {"target_metric": "area"}}] | Question: For the uclock module, how does the area optimization trade off against delay and power, and how does that relate to the structure shown in its AIG graph?
[graph_extractor {"graph_type": "AIG"}]
{
"status": "success",
"graph_type": "AIG",
"nodes": [
{
"id": "ram_1024_x_18",
"type": "RAM... | 6b2a9b76a9d1 | 0234b1c0fe61 | train | glm-5.3 | 2 | 3,300 | {
"repository": "https://github.com/pConst/basic_verilog",
"commit": "2654273b2c4e556a98e806f3a19b52c9b3c74614",
"path": "pacoblaze-2.2/pacoblaze/uclock.v",
"sha256": "2a73beb76a7f2b364f8e18047a7dcf71f3bda1a07dd772ae1dd9ec6acc40b118"
} |
For pcileech_pcie_cfg_a7, if I apply the recommended area-focused optimization recipes, what impact should I expect on area, delay, and power, and how does that interact with the module's complexity as measured by its cyclomatic complexity and operator count? | The area optimization for pcileech_pcie_cfg_a7 is estimated to reduce area by -15.0 and power by -10.0, but increase delay by 5.0, with a trade-off that aggressive sharing increases routing complexity. This matters because the module is already complex, with a cyclomatic complexity of 24 and an operator count of 2001, ... | github_repos/ufrisk_pcileech-fpga/pciescreamer/src/pcileech_pcie_cfg_a7.sv | pcileech_pcie_cfg_a7 | optimization_advisor+static_analyzer | [
{
"target_metric": "area"
},
{
"analysis_type": "full"
}
] | [optimization_advisor {"target_metric": "area"}]
{
"status": "success",
"target_metric": "area",
"recommended_recipes": [
"synth -top pcileech_pcie_cfg_a7 -flatten",
"opt -full; share -aggressive; opt",
"abc -g gates -liberty stdcells.lib",
"opt_clean -purge"
],
"optimization_suggestions": [
... | multi_tool | optimization_advisor+static_analyzer | compositional | eccfb1d65d1c | [{"tool": "optimization_advisor", "parameters": {"target_metric": "area"}}, {"tool": "static_analyzer", "parameters": {"analysis_type": "full"}}] | Question: For pcileech_pcie_cfg_a7, if I apply the recommended area-focused optimization recipes, what impact should I expect on area, delay, and power, and how does that interact with the module's complexity as measured by its cyclomatic complexity and operator count?
[optimization_advisor {"target_metric": "area"}]
... | bfd7a524d834 | 01c31ce8fc61 | train | glm-5.3 | 2 | 3,300 | {
"repository": "https://github.com/ufrisk/pcileech-fpga",
"commit": "c538c4170678c13f723dc921905fb81ff3c71d8e",
"path": "pciescreamer/src/pcileech_pcie_cfg_a7.sv",
"sha256": "f0e619b4a33cec0bccf444ac26792f01636ba7d27c0671e94bcaab8546d099a4"
} |
For the oh_oa32 module, how does the structure shown in its CDFG compare with the gate-level results after medium-level optimization for area and delay, and what do the two views tell us about the design overall? | The CDFG of oh_oa32 has 10 nodes and 12 edges, consisting of 1 $and, 3 $or, 5 input ports, and 1 output port with an average degree of 1.2, which matches the synthesized netlist exactly: 4 gates (1 $_AND_ and 3 $_OR_) with no restructuring during optimization. Synthesis reports an area of 4.0, a gate count of 4, a crit... | github_repos/aolofsson_oh/stdlib/rtl/oh_oa32.v | oh_oa32 | graph_extractor+synthesis_tool | [
{
"graph_type": "CDFG"
},
{
"optimization_level": "medium"
}
] | [graph_extractor {"graph_type": "CDFG"}]
{
"status": "success",
"graph_type": "CDFG",
"nodes": [
{
"id": "$<tmp>:17$and$4",
"type": "$and",
"attributes": {
"src": "<tmp>:17.15-17.41"
},
"parameters": {
"A_SIGNED": "00000000000000000000000000000000",
"A_WID... | multi_tool | graph_extractor+synthesis_tool | compositional | 9b6ad744da0b | [{"tool": "graph_extractor", "parameters": {"graph_type": "CDFG"}}, {"tool": "synthesis_tool", "parameters": {"optimization_level": "medium"}}] | Question: For the oh_oa32 module, how does the structure shown in its CDFG compare with the gate-level results after medium-level optimization for area and delay, and what do the two views tell us about the design overall?
[graph_extractor {"graph_type": "CDFG"}]
{
"status": "success",
"graph_type": "CDFG",
"nod... | bd4e46e555c1 | 027a7ac58213 | train | glm-5.3 | 2 | 3,300 | {
"repository": "https://github.com/aolofsson/oh",
"commit": "7edfcb5f0506fb854449fbe09598a7ec88bb2067",
"path": "stdlib/rtl/oh_oa32.v",
"sha256": "664eb2c1501a6d5d2581ad071c4cc1b392ac8a96cab88fa828e6b80a00be45e5"
} |
For the module edma_dp, based on its CDFG structure and the delay-focused optimization advice, how concerned should I be about the high average fanout, and what trade-offs would the suggested delay optimizations bring? | The CDFG of edma_dp has 34 nodes and 793 edges with an average degree of 23.32, which is high fanout and explains why the delay optimization suggests logic duplication via "splitnets -driver" as well as pipelining the arithmetic operations using register retiming. Following those delay-oriented suggestions is estimated... | github_repos/aolofsson_oh/edma/hdl/edma_dp.v | edma_dp | graph_extractor+optimization_advisor | [
{
"graph_type": "CDFG"
},
{
"target_metric": "delay"
}
] | [graph_extractor {"graph_type": "CDFG"}]
{
"status": "success",
"graph_type": "CDFG",
"nodes": [
{
"id": "$<tmp>:117$ternary$6",
"type": "$mux",
"attributes": {
"src": "<tmp>:117.33-117.69"
},
"parameters": {
"WIDTH": "00000000000000000000000000000001"
}
... | multi_tool | graph_extractor+optimization_advisor | compositional | f64db53eb1c5 | [{"tool": "graph_extractor", "parameters": {"graph_type": "CDFG"}}, {"tool": "optimization_advisor", "parameters": {"target_metric": "delay"}}] | Question: For the module edma_dp, based on its CDFG structure and the delay-focused optimization advice, how concerned should I be about the high average fanout, and what trade-offs would the suggested delay optimizations bring?
[graph_extractor {"graph_type": "CDFG"}]
{
"status": "success",
"graph_type": "CDFG",
... | 2dc7d5327114 | 02aafd3f71c9 | train | glm-5.3 | 2 | 3,300 | {
"repository": "https://github.com/aolofsson/oh",
"commit": "7edfcb5f0506fb854449fbe09598a7ec88bb2067",
"path": "edma/hdl/edma_dp.v",
"sha256": "20d40c73ef80e12368567a3fa41682a152fc056e6e5da9320512ad5b0f0a1727"
} |
For the mtx_fifo module, how well do the RTL signals survive into the netlist and how does that relate to the structure seen in its CDFG and the synthesis results β please summarize using the mapping score, unmapped signals, CDFG size, and area/delay/power figures. | The RTL-to-netlist mapping for mtx_fifo has an alignment score of 91.67 with 22 of 24 RTL signals mapped, leaving only emesh_cycle and emesh_wait unmapped. The CDFG has 40 nodes and 1530 edges, including 9 $mux and 8 port_input nodes, and synthesis at medium optimization yields an area of 811.5, delay of 402.28, power ... | github_repos/aolofsson_oh/mio/hdl/mtx_fifo.v | mtx_fifo | cross_stage_mapper+graph_extractor+synthesis_tool | [
{},
{
"graph_type": "CDFG"
},
{
"optimization_level": "medium"
}
] | [cross_stage_mapper {}]
{
"status": "success",
"rtl_to_netlist_mapping": {
"io_clk": [
"io_clk"
],
"clk": [
"io_clk",
"clk"
],
"valid": [
"valid",
"io_valid"
],
"fifo_data_in": [
"fifo_data_in"
],
"emesh_cycle": [],
"data_wide": [
...[545 c... | multi_tool | cross_stage_mapper+graph_extractor+synthesis_tool | compositional | 2f4fc322f201 | [{"tool": "cross_stage_mapper", "parameters": {}}, {"tool": "graph_extractor", "parameters": {"graph_type": "CDFG"}}, {"tool": "synthesis_tool", "parameters": {"optimization_level": "medium"}}] | Question: For the mtx_fifo module, how well do the RTL signals survive into the netlist and how does that relate to the structure seen in its CDFG and the synthesis results β please summarize using the mapping score, unmapped signals, CDFG size, and area/delay/power figures.
[cross_stage_mapper {}]
{
"status": "succ... | 52b03c0fa34d | 02b188cc4361 | train | glm-5.3 | 3 | 3,300 | {
"repository": "https://github.com/aolofsson/oh",
"commit": "7edfcb5f0506fb854449fbe09598a7ec88bb2067",
"path": "mio/hdl/mtx_fifo.v",
"sha256": "f7e18ac8da531372bfb4c499bb217e70bf548fa46479a3489c1f70a77d398fef"
} |
For the module edma_dp, how does the structure seen in its dataflow graph (DFG) compare with its source-level complexity, and do any lint issues raise concerns? | The DFG for edma_dp has 34 nodes and 793 edges with an average degree of 23.32, dominated by 6 mux nodes, 2 adders and 2 subtractors, while the source has 84 lines of code, cyclomatic complexity 7, and 477 operators across 2 always blocks and 10 assign statements. With 12 input and 6 output ports and no lint warnings, ... | github_repos/aolofsson_oh/edma/hdl/edma_dp.v | edma_dp | graph_extractor+static_analyzer | [
{
"graph_type": "DFG"
},
{
"analysis_type": "full"
}
] | [graph_extractor {"graph_type": "DFG"}]
{
"status": "success",
"graph_type": "DFG",
"nodes": [
{
"id": "$<tmp>:117$ternary$6",
"type": "$mux",
"attributes": {
"src": "<tmp>:117.33-117.69"
},
"parameters": {
"WIDTH": "00000000000000000000000000000001"
}
}... | multi_tool | graph_extractor+static_analyzer | compositional | a4b9fda68c64 | [{"tool": "graph_extractor", "parameters": {"graph_type": "DFG"}}, {"tool": "static_analyzer", "parameters": {"analysis_type": "full"}}] | Question: For the module edma_dp, how does the structure seen in its dataflow graph (DFG) compare with its source-level complexity, and do any lint issues raise concerns?
[graph_extractor {"graph_type": "DFG"}]
{
"status": "success",
"graph_type": "DFG",
"nodes": [
{
"id": "$<tmp>:117$ternary$6",
... | 89d620a6f6c2 | 02aafd3f71c9 | train | glm-5.3 | 2 | 3,300 | {
"repository": "https://github.com/aolofsson/oh",
"commit": "7edfcb5f0506fb854449fbe09598a7ec88bb2067",
"path": "edma/hdl/edma_dp.v",
"sha256": "20d40c73ef80e12368567a3fa41682a152fc056e6e5da9320512ad5b0f0a1727"
} |
For the aes_256 module, can you summarize its structure by relating the port and cell hierarchy information to its AIG graph representation, including how many AES round stages appear in the graph? | The aes_256 module has 6 inputs and 3 outputs (9 total ports), 5 assign statements, and instantiates aes_round_256 among its 4 instantiations. Its AIG graph contains 916 nodes and 13082 edges with an average degree of 14.28, including 14 aes_round_256 nodes plus 384 AND gates and 512 NOT gates. | github_repos/pConst_basic_verilog/Advanced Synthesis Cookbook/crypto/aes/aes_256.v | aes_256 | graph_extractor+static_analyzer | [
{
"graph_type": "AIG"
},
{
"analysis_type": "full"
}
] | [graph_extractor {"graph_type": "AIG"}]
{
"status": "success",
"graph_type": "AIG",
"nodes": [
{
"id": "$auto$aigmap.cc:118:execute$1005",
"type": "$_AND_",
"attributes": {},
"parameters": {}
},
{
"id": "$auto$aigmap.cc:118:execute$1009",
"type": "$_AND_",
"at... | multi_tool | graph_extractor+static_analyzer | compositional | 69c5e7520ab6 | [{"tool": "graph_extractor", "parameters": {"graph_type": "AIG"}}, {"tool": "static_analyzer", "parameters": {"analysis_type": "full"}}] | Question: For the aes_256 module, can you summarize its structure by relating the port and cell hierarchy information to its AIG graph representation, including how many AES round stages appear in the graph?
[graph_extractor {"graph_type": "AIG"}]
{
"status": "success",
"graph_type": "AIG",
"nodes": [
{
... | 234c037296c9 | 0311e75ae9b3 | train | glm-5.3 | 2 | 3,300 | {
"repository": "https://github.com/pConst/basic_verilog",
"commit": "2654273b2c4e556a98e806f3a19b52c9b3c74614",
"path": "Advanced Synthesis Cookbook/crypto/aes/aes_256.v",
"sha256": "d583ef9948be20f305335a9475fb62244aa6a1b4bd0416a5ce58fbaed116199d"
} |
For the fpga module, how does the CDFG structure compare with the synthesis results in terms of size and connectivity, and what are the delay and power figures? | The CDFG of the fpga module has 32 nodes and 113 edges with an average degree of 3.53, while synthesis at medium optimization reports only 10 cells (gate_count 10, area 10.0) plus 38 wires and 80 wire bits, indicating most CDFG nodes are the 14 input ports and 7 output ports rather than logic. The critical path estimat... | github_repos/alexforencich_verilog-ethernet/example/ATLYS/fpga/rtl/fpga.v | fpga | graph_extractor+synthesis_tool | [
{
"graph_type": "CDFG"
},
{
"optimization_level": "medium"
}
] | [graph_extractor {"graph_type": "CDFG"}]
{
"status": "success",
"graph_type": "CDFG",
"nodes": [
{
"id": "$<tmp>:142$not$5",
"type": "$not",
"attributes": {
"src": "<tmp>:142.10-142.21"
},
"parameters": {
"A_SIGNED": "00000000000000000000000000000000",
"A_... | multi_tool | graph_extractor+synthesis_tool | compositional | 7597bdc831a8 | [{"tool": "graph_extractor", "parameters": {"graph_type": "CDFG"}}, {"tool": "synthesis_tool", "parameters": {"optimization_level": "medium"}}] | Question: For the fpga module, how does the CDFG structure compare with the synthesis results in terms of size and connectivity, and what are the delay and power figures?
[graph_extractor {"graph_type": "CDFG"}]
{
"status": "success",
"graph_type": "CDFG",
"nodes": [
{
"id": "$<tmp>:142$not$5",
"... | 573d7be2213f | 032974379cfa | train | glm-5.3 | 2 | 3,300 | {
"repository": "https://github.com/alexforencich/verilog-ethernet",
"commit": "77320a9471d19c7dd383914bc049e02d9f4f1ffb",
"path": "example/ATLYS/fpga/rtl/fpga.v",
"sha256": "960ca32f8ca762458b3f82768c7e835e12550afcd620b661a689d531ac2c1626"
} |
For the axis_broadcast module, how does the register-level structure seen in its DFG compare with the RTL complexity metrics, and how well did the RTL signals carry over to the netlist in terms of mapping coverage? | The axis_broadcast DFG contains 60 nodes and 288 edges including 9 register-type elements (6 $dffe, 2 $sdff, 1 $sdffe) with an average degree of 4.8, which is consistent with the RTL's 9 regs, 2 always blocks and cyclomatic complexity of 12. However, the RTL-to-netlist mapping only achieved an alignment score of 61.9 w... | github_repos/alexforencich_verilog-ethernet/lib/axis/rtl/axis_broadcast.v | axis_broadcast | cross_stage_mapper+graph_extractor+static_analyzer | [
{},
{
"graph_type": "DFG"
},
{
"analysis_type": "full"
}
] | [cross_stage_mapper {}]
{
"status": "success",
"rtl_to_netlist_mapping": {
"s_axis_tready_reg": [],
"rst": [
"rst"
],
"wire": [],
"clk": [
"clk"
],
"store_axis_input_to_temp": [
"store_axis_input_to_temp"
],
"in": [
"store_axis_input_to_temp",
...[700 c... | multi_tool | cross_stage_mapper+graph_extractor+static_analyzer | compositional | 6d859e013d78 | [{"tool": "cross_stage_mapper", "parameters": {}}, {"tool": "graph_extractor", "parameters": {"graph_type": "DFG"}}, {"tool": "static_analyzer", "parameters": {"analysis_type": "full"}}] | Question: For the axis_broadcast module, how does the register-level structure seen in its DFG compare with the RTL complexity metrics, and how well did the RTL signals carry over to the netlist in terms of mapping coverage?
[cross_stage_mapper {}]
{
"status": "success",
"rtl_to_netlist_mapping": {
"s_axis_tre... | 4ff75e6cb22d | 032cbbcb5a44 | train | glm-5.3 | 3 | 3,300 | {
"repository": "https://github.com/alexforencich/verilog-ethernet",
"commit": "77320a9471d19c7dd383914bc049e02d9f4f1ffb",
"path": "lib/axis/rtl/axis_broadcast.v",
"sha256": "a644b7542adf7552cb4713ab22856e1b76c58780da970d122351e45bc0bc51bf"
} |
For the module crc24_dat64_only_flat, how does the gate-level structure seen in its CDFG compare with the synthesis results after medium-level delay and power optimization, and does anything in the source-level analysis explain that structure? | The CDFG of crc24_dat64_only_flat contains 726 nodes (724 $xor nodes plus one input and one output port) with 2172 edges and average degree 2.99, which matches synthesis results of 582 gates split into 425 XNOR and 157 XOR cells, giving an area of 1164.0, delay of 540.22, and power of 0.582. The static analysis confirm... | github_repos/pConst_basic_verilog/Advanced Synthesis Cookbook/crc/crc24_dat64_only_flat.v | crc24_dat64_only_flat | graph_extractor+static_analyzer+synthesis_tool | [
{
"graph_type": "CDFG"
},
{
"analysis_type": "full"
},
{
"optimization_level": "medium"
}
] | [graph_extractor {"graph_type": "CDFG"}]
{
"status": "success",
"graph_type": "CDFG",
"nodes": [
{
"id": "$<tmp>:101$xor$127",
"type": "$xor",
"attributes": {
"src": "<tmp>:101.5-101.18"
},
"parameters": {
"A_SIGNED": "00000000000000000000000000
...[67170 chars el... | multi_tool | graph_extractor+static_analyzer+synthesis_tool | compositional | 4eb8010d89fa | [{"tool": "graph_extractor", "parameters": {"graph_type": "CDFG"}}, {"tool": "static_analyzer", "parameters": {"analysis_type": "full"}}, {"tool": "synthesis_tool", "parameters": {"optimization_level": "medium"}}] | Question: For the module crc24_dat64_only_flat, how does the gate-level structure seen in its CDFG compare with the synthesis results after medium-level delay and power optimization, and does anything in the source-level analysis explain that structure?
[graph_extractor {"graph_type": "CDFG"}]
{
"status": "success",... | 92f92551e5fd | 033f3e48d47c | train | glm-5.3 | 3 | 3,300 | {
"repository": "https://github.com/pConst/basic_verilog",
"commit": "2654273b2c4e556a98e806f3a19b52c9b3c74614",
"path": "Advanced Synthesis Cookbook/crc/crc24_dat64_only_flat.v",
"sha256": "9a3f0f0ec842fe616d833bd9054130a2de6266e3176ae0a93c922f5fe0263514"
} |
For the module ct_ifu_decd_normal, how does its structural complexity from the CDFG compare with its source-level complexity, and what does this suggest about the design? | The CDFG of ct_ifu_decd_normal contains 273 nodes and 3505 edges with an average degree of 12.84, dominated by 102 $eq and 101 $logic_or operations, while the source itself looks fairly simple with 319 lines of code, 29 assign statements, no always blocks, and a cyclomatic complexity of only 4. This contrast shows that... | github_repos/XUANTIE-RV_openc910/C910_RTL_FACTORY/gen_rtl/ifu/rtl/ct_ifu_decd_normal.v | ct_ifu_decd_normal | graph_extractor+static_analyzer | [
{
"graph_type": "CDFG"
},
{
"analysis_type": "full"
}
] | [graph_extractor {"graph_type": "CDFG"}]
{
"status": "success",
"graph_type": "CDFG",
"nodes": [
{
"id": "$<tmp>:111$logic_and$4",
"type": "$logic_and",
"attributes": {
"src": "<tmp>:111.18-115.19"
},
"parameters": {
"A_SIGNED": "00000000000000000000000000000000",... | multi_tool | graph_extractor+static_analyzer | compositional | 2058080893cb | [{"tool": "graph_extractor", "parameters": {"graph_type": "CDFG"}}, {"tool": "static_analyzer", "parameters": {"analysis_type": "full"}}] | Question: For the module ct_ifu_decd_normal, how does its structural complexity from the CDFG compare with its source-level complexity, and what does this suggest about the design?
[graph_extractor {"graph_type": "CDFG"}]
{
"status": "success",
"graph_type": "CDFG",
"nodes": [
{
"id": "$<tmp>:111$logic... | 4684ad59e829 | 034b39c6d6f2 | train | glm-5.3 | 2 | 3,300 | {
"repository": "https://github.com/XUANTIE-RV/openc910",
"commit": "b91c90914c19f114d35c8f6b73408eb241ed847c",
"path": "C910_RTL_FACTORY/gen_rtl/ifu/rtl/ct_ifu_decd_normal.v",
"sha256": "17f475965e15af27ab44d9c91412f547bad3734510d7dabcc73cf1f00fbb0684"
} |
For asic_aoi33, considering its RTL structure and the cross-stage signal mapping results, is applying the area-focused optimization flow worthwhile, and what trade-offs should I expect? | asic_aoi33 is a tiny combinational cell (11 lines of code, 1 assign statement, cyclomatic complexity 1, 20 operators) with all 7 RTL signals mapping cleanly to the netlist at an alignment score of 100.0, so the suggested flow (flatten, share -aggressive, technology mapping, opt_clean -purge) would still deliver an esti... | github_repos/aolofsson_oh/asiclib/hdl/asic_aoi33.v | asic_aoi33 | cross_stage_mapper+optimization_advisor+static_analyzer | [
{},
{
"target_metric": "area"
},
{
"analysis_type": "full"
}
] | [cross_stage_mapper {}]
{
"status": "success",
"rtl_to_netlist_mapping": {
"a0": [
"a0"
],
"z": [
"z"
],
"a2": [
"a2"
],
"b0": [
"b0"
],
"b1": [
"b1"
],
"b2": [
"b2"
],
"a1": [
"a1"
]
},
"alignment_score": 100.0,
... | multi_tool | cross_stage_mapper+optimization_advisor+static_analyzer | compositional | 4f2bb14e7e5c | [{"tool": "cross_stage_mapper", "parameters": {}}, {"tool": "optimization_advisor", "parameters": {"target_metric": "area"}}, {"tool": "static_analyzer", "parameters": {"analysis_type": "full"}}] | Question: For asic_aoi33, considering its RTL structure and the cross-stage signal mapping results, is applying the area-focused optimization flow worthwhile, and what trade-offs should I expect?
[cross_stage_mapper {}]
{
"status": "success",
"rtl_to_netlist_mapping": {
"a0": [
"a0"
],
"z": [
... | 04e9d310f01b | 036be0a4c9ae | train | glm-5.3 | 3 | 3,300 | {
"repository": "https://github.com/aolofsson/oh",
"commit": "7edfcb5f0506fb854449fbe09598a7ec88bb2067",
"path": "asiclib/hdl/asic_aoi33.v",
"sha256": "3056d83cd2732a2210bba39d5209bbccd92dee5d505ae90b1bfa5449230e7e70"
} |
For crc24_dat64_only_flat, how does the area-focused optimization trade off against delay, given the structure of its AIG representation? | The AIG for crc24_dat64_only_flat contains 5070 nodes (2172 AND nodes, 2896 NOT nodes, plus 1 input and 1 output port) with 12308 edges and an average degree of 2.43. Applying the recommended area-oriented recipes, including aggressive resource sharing of arithmetic operators, is estimated to improve area by -15.0 and ... | github_repos/pConst_basic_verilog/Advanced Synthesis Cookbook/crc/crc24_dat64_only_flat.v | crc24_dat64_only_flat | graph_extractor+optimization_advisor | [
{
"graph_type": "AIG"
},
{
"target_metric": "area"
}
] | [graph_extractor {"graph_type": "AIG"}]
{
"status": "success",
"graph_type": "AIG",
"nodes": [
{
"id": "$auto$aigmap.cc:118:execute$10001",
"type": "$_AND_",
"attributes": {},
"parameters": {}
},
{
"id": "$auto$aigmap.cc:118:execute$10007",
"type": "$_AND_",
"... | multi_tool | graph_extractor+optimization_advisor | compositional | 87c5ee4ab94b | [{"tool": "graph_extractor", "parameters": {"graph_type": "AIG"}}, {"tool": "optimization_advisor", "parameters": {"target_metric": "area"}}] | Question: For crc24_dat64_only_flat, how does the area-focused optimization trade off against delay, given the structure of its AIG representation?
[graph_extractor {"graph_type": "AIG"}]
{
"status": "success",
"graph_type": "AIG",
"nodes": [
{
"id": "$auto$aigmap.cc:118:execute$10001",
"type": "... | 1f2fa6a5e8ae | 033f3e48d47c | train | glm-5.3 | 2 | 3,300 | {
"repository": "https://github.com/pConst/basic_verilog",
"commit": "2654273b2c4e556a98e806f3a19b52c9b3c74614",
"path": "Advanced Synthesis Cookbook/crc/crc24_dat64_only_flat.v",
"sha256": "9a3f0f0ec842fe616d833bd9054130a2de6266e3176ae0a93c922f5fe0263514"
} |
For the ct_had_private_ir module, how well did the RTL survive into the netlist, and given those results, is it worth applying the power-focused optimization suggestions like clock gating? | The RTL-to-netlist mapping for ct_had_private_ir achieved an alignment_score of 95.0 with 57 of 60 RTL signals mapped (only hacr_f, update_dr_ff1, and update_hacr_ff1 unmapped), so the netlist is a faithful starting point for optimization. The power-targeted optimization (clock gating plus operand isolation) estimates ... | github_repos/XUANTIE-RV_openc910/C910_RTL_FACTORY/gen_rtl/had/rtl/ct_had_private_ir.v | ct_had_private_ir | cross_stage_mapper+optimization_advisor | [
{},
{
"target_metric": "power"
}
] | [cross_stage_mapper {}]
{
"status": "success",
"rtl_to_netlist_mapping": {
"ir_xx_bypass_reg_sel": [
"ir_xx_bypass_reg_sel"
],
"bank1_sel": [
"bank1_sel"
],
"bank2_sel": [
"bank2_sel"
],
"ir_xx_dbgfifo_reg_sel": [
"ir_xx_dbgfifo_reg_sel"
],
"cpuclk": [
... | multi_tool | cross_stage_mapper+optimization_advisor | compositional | 7f2de80e3f83 | [{"tool": "cross_stage_mapper", "parameters": {}}, {"tool": "optimization_advisor", "parameters": {"target_metric": "power"}}] | Question: For the ct_had_private_ir module, how well did the RTL survive into the netlist, and given those results, is it worth applying the power-focused optimization suggestions like clock gating?
[cross_stage_mapper {}]
{
"status": "success",
"rtl_to_netlist_mapping": {
"ir_xx_bypass_reg_sel": [
"ir_x... | 40c53fcee28a | 04278c6fa62d | train | glm-5.3 | 2 | 3,300 | {
"repository": "https://github.com/XUANTIE-RV/openc910",
"commit": "b91c90914c19f114d35c8f6b73408eb241ed847c",
"path": "C910_RTL_FACTORY/gen_rtl/had/rtl/ct_had_private_ir.v",
"sha256": "ede3e2e7447ece50fbfbbc92178f7568afdc97404fc2287d1bebe7a529799bd6"
} |
For the axis_xgmii_tx_64 module, the CDFG shows a lot of multiplexing and arithmetic logic while the area-focused optimization run suggests aggressive resource sharing; based on the CDFG structure and the estimated area/power/delay effects, is aggressive sharing a reasonable choice here and what should be watched out f... | The CDFG for axis_xgmii_tx_64 contains 212 nodes and 6371 edges (average degree 30.05) with 61 $mux and 17 $pmux nodes plus 6 $sub and 6 $gt operators, so sharing multiplexers and arithmetic operators has real potential. The area optimization estimates -15.0% area and -10.0% power but +5.0% delay, and the noted trade-o... | github_repos/alexforencich_verilog-ethernet/rtl/axis_xgmii_tx_64.v | axis_xgmii_tx_64 | graph_extractor+optimization_advisor | [
{
"graph_type": "CDFG"
},
{
"target_metric": "area"
}
] | [graph_extractor {"graph_type": "CDFG"}]
{
"status": "success",
"graph_type": "CDFG",
"nodes": [
{
"id": "$<tmp>:234$ternary$10",
"type": "$mux",
"attributes": {
"src": "<tmp>:234.41-234.88"
},
"parameters": {
"WIDTH": "00000000000000000000000000001000"
}
... | multi_tool | graph_extractor+optimization_advisor | compositional | 13844a8942d2 | [{"tool": "graph_extractor", "parameters": {"graph_type": "CDFG"}}, {"tool": "optimization_advisor", "parameters": {"target_metric": "area"}}] | Question: For the axis_xgmii_tx_64 module, the CDFG shows a lot of multiplexing and arithmetic logic while the area-focused optimization run suggests aggressive resource sharing; based on the CDFG structure and the estimated area/power/delay effects, is aggressive sharing a reasonable choice here and what should be wat... | a28f7fb3b13f | 03e99aadb78f | train | glm-5.3 | 2 | 3,300 | {
"repository": "https://github.com/alexforencich/verilog-ethernet",
"commit": "77320a9471d19c7dd383914bc049e02d9f4f1ffb",
"path": "rtl/axis_xgmii_tx_64.v",
"sha256": "e65559d1aad43507629efa1b54e59a9bfa650ee2e06f1ead8451c1b4134fe8e2"
} |
For cpu_mem_icg_check_top, given its power optimization advice and its structural profile (195 lines of code, cyclomatic complexity 19, 11 instantiations, 8 wires), is the recommended clock gating worth pursuing, and what power improvement is estimated? | Yes β the power analysis recommends clock gating for registers plus operand isolation, with an estimated power improvement of -25.0, though it warns of added area overhead and timing complexity. Structurally, cpu_mem_icg_check_top has 195 lines of code, cyclomatic complexity 19, nesting depth 24, 8 wires, 0 regs, and 1... | github_repos/XUANTIE-RV_openc910/smart_run/impl/mem_icg_test/cpu_mem_icg_check_top.v | cpu_mem_icg_check_top | optimization_advisor+static_analyzer | [
{
"target_metric": "power"
},
{
"analysis_type": "full"
}
] | [optimization_advisor {"target_metric": "power"}]
{
"status": "success",
"target_metric": "power",
"recommended_recipes": [
"synth -top cpu_mem_icg_check_top",
"opt; share; opt",
"abc -g gates -liberty stdcells.lib",
"opt_clean; clockgate"
],
"optimization_suggestions": [
{
"type": "... | multi_tool | optimization_advisor+static_analyzer | compositional | 49093c556cfb | [{"tool": "optimization_advisor", "parameters": {"target_metric": "power"}}, {"tool": "static_analyzer", "parameters": {"analysis_type": "full"}}] | Question: For cpu_mem_icg_check_top, given its power optimization advice and its structural profile (195 lines of code, cyclomatic complexity 19, 11 instantiations, 8 wires), is the recommended clock gating worth pursuing, and what power improvement is estimated?
[optimization_advisor {"target_metric": "power"}]
{
"... | 7c5ac463c2cf | 040ae23d3cc4 | train | glm-5.3 | 2 | 3,300 | {
"repository": "https://github.com/XUANTIE-RV/openc910",
"commit": "b91c90914c19f114d35c8f6b73408eb241ed847c",
"path": "smart_run/impl/mem_icg_test/cpu_mem_icg_check_top.v",
"sha256": "3c2c5dcd224e8a8b6b475ef4d3d11b4749f1b50c77e1fe974d9c71c1f5e0bab5"
} |
For the dut module, the CDFG analysis reports a highly connected graph (448 edges over 18 nodes) β how does that connectivity compare to what was actually synthesized, given the RTL-to-netlist signal mapping and the synthesis results for gate count, delay, and power? | Despite the CDFG for dut having 448 edges over 18 nodes with an average degree of 24.89, synthesis produced a very small netlist of only 14 gates (5 $_AND_, 6 $_NOR_, 1 $_NAND_, 1 $_ANDNOT_, plus the edma instance), and the RTL-to-netlist mapping shows all 12 RTL signals mapped with a 100.0 alignment score and 0 unmapp... | github_repos/aolofsson_oh/edma/dv/dut_edma.v | dut | cross_stage_mapper+graph_extractor+synthesis_tool | [
{},
{
"graph_type": "CDFG"
},
{
"optimization_level": "medium"
}
] | [cross_stage_mapper {}]
{
"status": "success",
"rtl_to_netlist_mapping": {
"edma_access_in": [
"edma_access_in"
],
"reg_wait_in": [
"reg_wait_in"
],
"nreset": [
"nreset"
],
"reg_access_out": [
"reg_access_out"
],
"reg_access_in": [
"reg_access_in"
... | multi_tool | cross_stage_mapper+graph_extractor+synthesis_tool | compositional | ef5ebb87489e | [{"tool": "cross_stage_mapper", "parameters": {}}, {"tool": "graph_extractor", "parameters": {"graph_type": "CDFG"}}, {"tool": "synthesis_tool", "parameters": {"optimization_level": "medium"}}] | Question: For the dut module, the CDFG analysis reports a highly connected graph (448 edges over 18 nodes) β how does that connectivity compare to what was actually synthesized, given the RTL-to-netlist signal mapping and the synthesis results for gate count, delay, and power?
[cross_stage_mapper {}]
{
"status": "su... | 67363b68e1ef | 04ab15ffca83 | train | glm-5.3 | 3 | 3,300 | {
"repository": "https://github.com/aolofsson/oh",
"commit": "7edfcb5f0506fb854449fbe09598a7ec88bb2067",
"path": "edma/dv/dut_edma.v",
"sha256": "91d73e540c961e1b6185f324f82a3224095c790e058a0a6af03aaf8e96a30c9e"
} |
For the oh_reg1 module, given its cross-stage signal mapping results and its code structure analysis, how well do the RTL signals align with the netlist, and which specific input is the cause of any mismatch relative to the module's 4 input ports? | The mapping achieved an alignment score of 75.0, with 3 of 4 RTL signals mapped and only the data input left unmapped. Structurally, oh_reg1 has 4 inputs and 1 output among its 5 total ports, contains 1 always block and 1 assign statement, and reaches a cyclomatic complexity of 7 with a nesting depth of 3 across 35 lin... | github_repos/aolofsson_oh/stdlib/rtl/oh_reg1.v | oh_reg1 | cross_stage_mapper+static_analyzer | [
{},
{
"analysis_type": "full"
}
] | [cross_stage_mapper {}]
{
"status": "success",
"rtl_to_netlist_mapping": {
"en": [
"en"
],
"clk": [
"clk"
],
"nreset": [
"nreset"
],
"data": []
},
"alignment_score": 75.0,
"unmapped_elements": [
"data"
],
"mapping_statistics": {
"rtl_signals": 4,
"... | multi_tool | cross_stage_mapper+static_analyzer | compositional | 52a704c39f35 | [{"tool": "cross_stage_mapper", "parameters": {}}, {"tool": "static_analyzer", "parameters": {"analysis_type": "full"}}] | Question: For the oh_reg1 module, given its cross-stage signal mapping results and its code structure analysis, how well do the RTL signals align with the netlist, and which specific input is the cause of any mismatch relative to the module's 4 input ports?
[cross_stage_mapper {}]
{
"status": "success",
"rtl_to_ne... | f2f813448f35 | 043586e54a0e | train | glm-5.3 | 2 | 3,300 | {
"repository": "https://github.com/aolofsson/oh",
"commit": "7edfcb5f0506fb854449fbe09598a7ec88bb2067",
"path": "stdlib/rtl/oh_reg1.v",
"sha256": "60e1bd5ace98a71458f37b128ca37dcaa80f332cea9864b032a76e705e48b34f"
} |
For the debounce_switch module, how does the structure of its CDFG (nodes, edges, node types) relate to its overall code complexity, and does the high average connectivity suggest the module is complex for its size? | The CDFG for debounce_switch has 18 nodes and 470 edges with an average degree of 26.11, dominated by 3 muxes, 2 adffe registers, and 1 adff, which reflects the module's cyclomatic complexity of 13 and nesting depth of 12 across 73 lines of code with 77 operators. The dense connectivity relative to the small node count... | github_repos/corundum_corundum/fpga/lib/pcie/example/S10DX_DK/fpga/rtl/debounce_switch.v | debounce_switch | graph_extractor+static_analyzer | [
{
"graph_type": "CDFG"
},
{
"analysis_type": "full"
}
] | [graph_extractor {"graph_type": "CDFG"}]
{
"status": "success",
"graph_type": "CDFG",
"nodes": [
{
"id": "$<tmp>:69$lt$5",
"type": "$lt",
"attributes": {
"src": "<tmp>:69.13-69.27"
},
"parameters": {
"A_SIGNED": "00000000000000000000000000000000",
"A_WIDTH... | multi_tool | graph_extractor+static_analyzer | compositional | 44d8cf1e94dd | [{"tool": "graph_extractor", "parameters": {"graph_type": "CDFG"}}, {"tool": "static_analyzer", "parameters": {"analysis_type": "full"}}] | Question: For the debounce_switch module, how does the structure of its CDFG (nodes, edges, node types) relate to its overall code complexity, and does the high average connectivity suggest the module is complex for its size?
[graph_extractor {"graph_type": "CDFG"}]
{
"status": "success",
"graph_type": "CDFG",
"... | d23bc314f984 | 052745db4692 | train | glm-5.3 | 2 | 3,300 | {
"repository": "https://github.com/corundum/corundum",
"commit": "1ca0151b97af85aa5dd306d74b6bcec65904d2ce",
"path": "fpga/lib/pcie/example/S10DX_DK/fpga/rtl/debounce_switch.v",
"sha256": "02d6ba80136cb9be942347e33c43881f465acbfc4f41b6af3a32d41c86b4ef5a"
} |
CircuitQA
Question answering over digital RTL (Verilog) designs, grounded in the outputs of analysis backends (static analysis, synthesis, simulation, graph extraction, optimisation advice, RTL-to-netlist mapping). Companion data and code for CircuitQA: A Grounded Architecture for Question Answering over Digital RTL Designs with Multi-Backend Query Routing. Trained adapters: drawais/circuitqa-adapters.
Contents
| Path | Contents |
|---|---|
corpus/ |
30,041 / 4,262 / 3,294 question-answer pairs (train / validation / test; no repository is shared between splits) and eval_sample.jsonl, the 475-question stratified sample of the test split evaluated in the paper (Section IV-G, "Released corpus"). |
compositional/ |
2,491 / 478 / 330 questions that require two or three backends (questions involving the simulation backend, and questions whose RTL-to-netlist mapping rests on a synthesis run that produced no netlist, are not included), the backend outputs they were written from (backend_results.jsonl), and the backend calls predicted by the router and executed end to end (test_e2e.jsonl, e2e_calls.jsonl, e2e_results.jsonl). The released compositional adapter was trained on 4,974 training questions, including the 2,483 excluded here. |
rephrasings/ |
Rephrasings of 29,934 training and 4,146 validation questions of corpus/ (those for which a valid rephrasing was produced). |
outputs/ |
Per-sample predictions on corpus/eval_sample.jsonl (corpus_eval/) and on compositional/test.jsonl (compositional/), router outputs on the compositional test set, and numeric LLM-judge scores of the compositional answers (judge_scores/). See Outputs below. |
code/ |
Backends (eda_tools.py), corpus pipeline, training, inference, routing and evaluation code (Apache-2.0, see code/LICENSE). The scoring scripts (score.py, mt_score.py, mt_numeric.py) run on the released files; the pipeline and training scripts document how the data were built and expect the design sources and CIRCUITQA_ROOT. |
scripts/fetch_sources.py |
Retrieves and verifies the referenced design sources. |
SHA256SUMS |
SHA-256 of every file in this repository (sha256sum -c SHA256SUMS). |
Record fields (corpus)
question_hash (record identifier), question, answer; module_name, category, subcategory, difficulty; tool_name,
tool_parameters, stage1_target (the backend call as JSON); tool_result (the backend
output the answer is computed from, as a JSON-encoded string); stage2_context (question and backend output as given
to the decoder in training); source = {repository, commit, path, sha256} of the design
file. In eval_sample.jsonl, prompt_code_chars (3,000) is the cap on the design-source
characters given to the baseline models: the first 3,000 characters, or the whole file if shorter
(CircuitQA inference used the first 2,000, --verilog-cap).
In corpus records stage2_context is the decoder's excerpt of the backend output (logs, node
and edge lists omitted, cut at 1,500 characters); tool_result holds the full output. The
graph backend lists at most 100 nodes and 200 edges (node_count and edge_count are
complete), and the simulation backend at most 200 signal toggle rates. Compositional records additionally carry
design_id, plan_id, n_calls and writer_model (the LLM that wrote the question), and
source_file, the design's path relative to the original collection (informational; use
source to retrieve the file), split, and ctx_cap (the character budget of the decoder
context); in compositional records tool_parameters is a list with one parameter object per
backend call. test_e2e.jsonl holds the same questions with predicted_calls, the router's
output, and with tool_result/stage2_context built from the outputs of the predicted calls
(e2e_results.jsonl, a separate execution).
In compositional tool_result and stage2_context, outputs longer than the decoder's context
budget (ctx_cap) are shortened, marked ...[N chars elided]...; the full outputs are in
backend_results.jsonl (the shortening was applied before local temporary paths were replaced
by <tmp>, so lengths and cut points differ slightly from those files). Rephrasing files hold question_hash, question (the rephrasing),
question_original and paraphrase_model; judge files hold question_hash and score.
designs.jsonl: design_id, module_name, split, source. e2e_calls.jsonl: key,
design_id, tool, parameters. backend_results.jsonl and e2e_results.jsonl: the same
plus result and seconds; backend_results.jsonl holds every backend run on the released designs, including
runs that ended with status: error (no question is built on those). Output files hold
question_hash, category and prediction; router files hold question_hash, category,
gold_tool, pred_tool (the set of predicted backends, +-joined as in gold_tool) and raw
(the router's output).
Units and backend conventions
- Synthesis
area,delayandpowerare gate-count-based estimates, reported in relative area units, ps and mW respectively; they are not sign-off figures for a technology library. optimization_advisoris rule based; itsestimated_improvementvalues are fixed pertarget_metric(area,delayorpower), not measured.simulation_toolis run with 100 cycles of a generated testbench in every record.
Outputs
File names give the system and the setting:
v2_s4_seed{42,123,456}_Bβ the single-backend Response Decoder (three training seeds) on the corpus evaluation sample, given the backend output (condition B);v2_qwenbase_Bβ the unmodified Qwen2.5-Coder-7B-Instruct base model in the same setting.s4_seed*_mt_Bβ the single-backend decoder on the compositional test set given the correct backend outputs;mt_seed*_mt_Bβ the compositional decoder given the correct outputs;mt_seed*_mt_e2eβ the compositional decoder given the outputs of the calls predicted by the router (end to end).qrm_mt_seed42_mt/qrm_s4_seed42_mtβ outputs of the compositional and the single-backend router on the compositional test set.judge_scores/<run>.judge_<judge>.jsonlβ per-question scores in [0, 1]. GLM-5.3 judged all three seeds of every compositional run; Claude Opus 5.5 judged seed 42.
Design sources are referenced, not redistributed
The design files stay in their upstream repositories under their own licence terms and are not included here. To obtain them:
python3 scripts/fetch_sources.py corpus/test.jsonl compositional/designs.jsonl --out sources/
The script downloads each repository at the recorded commit (the default branch where no commit is recorded), extracts the referenced files and keeps those whose SHA-256 matches. No commit is recorded for 1,304 training records (ucb-bar/chipyard and SpinalHDL/VexRiscv); for these the default branch is used. Most of the Chipyard paths lie inside git submodules, which repository archives do not contain; the script reports them as not found. Upstream repositories (27):
- https://github.com/SI-RISCV/e200_opensource
- https://github.com/SpinalHDL/VexRiscv
- https://github.com/The-OpenROAD-Project/OpenROAD
- https://github.com/XUANTIE-RV/openc910
- https://github.com/XUANTIE-RV/wujian100_open
- https://github.com/YosysHQ/picorv32
- https://github.com/ZipCPU/zipcpu
- https://github.com/alexforencich/verilog-axi
- https://github.com/alexforencich/verilog-ethernet
- https://github.com/alexforencich/verilog-pcie
- https://github.com/analogdevicesinc/hdl
- https://github.com/aolofsson/oh
- https://github.com/corundum/corundum
- https://github.com/darklife/darkriscv
- https://github.com/firesim/NiteFury-and-LiteFury-firesim
- https://github.com/firesim/aws-fpga-firesim
- https://github.com/firesim/firesim
- https://github.com/firesim/garnet-firesim
- https://github.com/nvdla/hw
- https://github.com/olofk/serv
- https://github.com/pConst/basic_verilog
- https://github.com/riscv-mcu/e203_hbirdv2
- https://github.com/ucb-bar/chipyard
- https://github.com/ucb-bar/nvdla-wrapper
- https://github.com/ufrisk/pcileech-fpga
- https://github.com/ultraembedded/riscv
- https://github.com/vortexgpgpu/vortex
How the data were made
- Corpus questions are instantiated from category templates. Each answer is computed from the
output of the backend named in
stage1_target, run on the design's full upstream source with the question's own parameters. Records whose backend reports an error are not included. - Backends (
code/eda_tools.py) use the open-source tools of OSS CAD Suite (Yosys, Icarus Verilog). Synthesis area, delay and power are gate-count-based estimates in relative units. The optimisation backend is rule based. Simulation drives a generated testbench for 100 cycles and measures toggle rates (bit transitions per bit and cycle) and toggle coverage from the VCD waveform; toggle-rate questions are kept only for signals in the recorded waveform. - The compositional questions and reference answers and the question rephrasings were written by the authors with LLMs (Claude Opus 5.5 for compositional validation and test, GLM-5.3 for compositional training and the rephrasings) and accepted only if every number in an answer occurs in the backend outputs or the question, the answer uses a value specific to every backend, and the question names the module.
- Model: Qwen2.5-Coder-7B-Instruct (Apache-2.0) with LoRA adapters trained by the authors.
Licence
Annotations (questions, answers, backend outputs, splits, model predictions and judge scores): CC-BY-4.0. Code (code/, scripts/): Apache-2.0
(see code/LICENSE and NOTICE). Design sources are not included; each is governed by the
licence terms of its upstream repository and of the file itself (some files carry their own
vendor or per-file licence headers). Backend outputs are derived from the upstream designs (for
example, netlist graphs keep their signal and cell names); rights in the designs remain with
their owners and apply to these derived outputs to the extent they reach them.
Citation
If you use the CircuitQA dataset, code or adapters, please cite:
@misc{awais2026circuitqa,
title = {{CircuitQA}: A Grounded Architecture for Question Answering over Digital {RTL} Designs with Multi-Backend Query Routing},
author = {Awais, Muhammad and Postolache, Octavian Adrian and Oliveira, Sancho Moura},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://huggingface.co/datasets/drawais/circuitqa}},
note = {Dataset and code}
}
@misc{awais2026circuitqaadapters,
title = {{CircuitQA} Adapters: {LoRA} Adapters for {Qwen2.5-Coder-7B-Instruct}},
author = {Awais, Muhammad and Postolache, Octavian Adrian and Oliveira, Sancho Moura},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://huggingface.co/drawais/circuitqa-adapters}},
note = {Trained model adapters}
}
- Downloads last month
- 103