<p>The complex work of designing new ASICs today and the increasing costs of time to market (TTM) delays are putting high responsibility on the research and development teams to make fault free designs. The main purpose of implementing a static rule checking tool in the design flow today is to find errors and bugs in the hardware definition language (HDL) code as fast and soon as possible. The sooner you find a bug in the design, the shorter the turnaround time becomes, and thereby both time and money will be saved.</p><p>There are a couple of tools in the market that performs static HDL analysis and they vary in both price and functionality. In this project mainly Atrenta Spyglass was evaluated but similar tools were also evaluated for comparison purpose.</p><p>The purpose of this master thesis was to evaluate the need of implementing a rule checking tool in the design flow at the Digital ASIC department PDU Base Station development in Kista, who also was the commissioner for this project. Based on the findings in this project it is recommended that a static rule checking tool is introduced in the design flow at the ASIC department. However, in order to determine which of the different tools the following pointers should be regarded:</p><p>• If the tool is only going to be used as for lint checks (elementary structure and code checks) on RTL, then the implementation of Mentors Design Checker is advised.</p><p>• If the tool is going to be used for more sophisticated structural checks, clock tree/reset tree propagation, code checks, basic constraints checks, basic Clock Domain Crossings (CDC) checks, then Synopsys LEDA is advised.</p><p>• If the tool is going to be used as for advanced structural checks, extensive clock tree/reset tree propagation, code checks, constraints checks, functional Design For Test (DFT) checks (as testmode signal propagation) and functional CDC checks on RTL as well as on netlist level, then Atrenta Spyglass is advised.</p><p>The areas regarding checks that could be of interest for Ericsson is believed to be regular lint checks for RTL (naming, code and basic structure), clock/reset tree propagation (netlist and RTL), constraints and functional DFT checks (netlist and RTL).</p>

The complex work of designing new ASICs today and the increasing costs of time to market (TTM) delays are putting high responsibility on the research and development teams to make fault free designs. The main purpose of implementing a static rule checking tool in the design flow today is to find errors and bugs in the hardware definition language (HDL) code as fast and soon as possible. The sooner you find a bug in the design, the shorter the turnaround time becomes, and thereby both time and money will be saved. There are a couple of tools in the market that performs static HDL analysis and they vary in both price and functionality. In this project mainly Atrenta Spyglass was evaluated but similar tools were also evaluated for comparison purpose. The purpose of this master thesis was to evaluate the need of implementing a rule checking tool in the design flow at the Digital ASIC department PDU Base Station development in Kista, who also was the commissioner for this project. Based on the findings in this project it is recommended that a static rule checking tool is introduced in the design flow at the ASIC department. However, in order to determine which of the different tools the following pointers should be regarded: • If the tool is only going to be used as for lint checks (elementary structure and code checks) on RTL, then the implementation of Mentors Design Checker is advised. • If the tool is going to be used for more sophisticated structural checks, clock tree/reset tree propagation, code checks, basic constraints checks, basic Clock Domain Crossings (CDC) checks, then Synopsys LEDA is advised. • If the tool is going to be used as for advanced structural checks, extensive clock tree/reset tree propagation, code checks, constraints checks, functional Design For Test (DFT) checks (as testmode signal propagation) and functional CDC checks on RTL as well as on netlist level, then Atrenta Spyglass is advised. The areas regarding checks that could be of interest for Ericsson is believed to be regular lint checks for RTL (naming, code and basic structure), clock/reset tree propagation (netlist and RTL), constraints and functional DFT checks (netlist and RTL).

The Cenozoic was a time of climatic, tectonic and eustatic change in the Southern Hemisphere. Cooling at the pole, glaciation and substantial sea ice formation occurred as latitudinal temperature gradients increased and tectonics altered Southern Hemisphere circulation patterns. During this same time frame, the tectonic regime of the New Zealand continental block transitioned from a passive margin to an active plate boundary, resulting in the reversal of a long-standing transgression and an influx of terrigenous sediment to marine basins. In this transition, depositional basins in the South Island became more localized; however, the influence of oceanographic and tectonic drivers is poorly understood on a local scale. Here we apply sedimentological, biostratigraphic and geochemical analyses to revise understanding of the effects of the changing climatic regime and active tectonics on the development of Oligocene and Miocene rocks in the Northern Canterbury Basin. The Late Oligocene to Middle Miocene sedimentary rocks of the northern Canterbury Basin record oceanographic and tectonic influences on basin formation, sediment supply and deposition. The Palaeocene to Late Eocene Amuri Formation in the basin are micrites and biogenic cherts recording deepwater, terrigenous-starved environments, and do not show any influence of active tectonics. The Early Oligocene development of ice on the Antarctic continent and the associated global sea level response is reflected in this basin as the Marshall Paraconformity, an eroded, glauconitized and phosphatised firm ground and hardground atop the Amuri. Sedimentation above this unconformity resumed in the Late Oligocene-Early Miocene with cleaner, deep-water, bathyal planktic foraminifera packstones and wackestones in eastern areas and Late Oligocene inner shelf volcaniclastic packstones in parts of the western basin. Post-unconformity sedimentation resumed earlier in western areas, as the currents responsible for scouring the sea floor moved progressively to the east. The development of tectonic uplift in terrestrial settings is first seen in the northwestern basin in Lower Miocene fine quartz-rich sandstones, and by the Middle Miocene, bathyal sandstones and quartz-rich wackestones appear in the basin, replacing earlier, more pure carbonates. The uplift caused shallowing to the west, in the form of shelf progradation due to sediment influx. This shallowing is not observed to the east; instead, the palaeoenvironments show a deepening as a result of sea level rise.