[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Help-gnucap] Re: bm_pulse is still buggy

From: a r
Subject: [Help-gnucap] Re: bm_pulse is still buggy
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 21:46:36 +0000

Attached is a patch for It works for me but I'm not
entirely sure that I understand the event scheduling mechanism.



On Feb 16, 2008 9:26 PM, a r <address@hidden> wrote:
> Hi Al,
> bm_pulse still generates a distorted waveform. On 3/12/2007 I've
> posted a corrected version of the tr_eval function that does not
> suffer from this problem. To be honest, it's a bit disappointing - I
> understand you may have a problem testing all the stuff by yourself
> but, please, at least listen to users and fix some obvious bugs
> (especially when you are given a working solution).
> The following test case exposes the problem (note the waveform should
> have a 50% duty cycle). It would probably be a good idea to have an
> automatic regression test suite.
> ==================
> * pulse test
> v1 1 0 pulse (0 1 2.5n 0.01n 0.01n 1.48n 3n)
> .option acct showall
> .option method=euler dtmin=1e-16 abstol=1e-13 vntol=1e-7 chgtol=1e-15
> reltol=1e-4 itl3=3 itl4=10 trstepgrow=1.5 trtol=0.1
> .probe tran v(nodes)
> .dc
> .tran 1n 20n trace alltime >pulse_test.out
> .end
> ==================
> BTW, I noticed there are two modeling functions now: tr_eval and
> tr_review. As far as I can see the former is used for generating
> waveform values and the latter for time events. Is this right?
> Regards,
> -r.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]