[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnucap-devel] problem with clone_instance
From: |
Felix Salfelder |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnucap-devel] problem with clone_instance |
Date: |
Sun, 17 Nov 2013 10:40:40 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) |
On Sun, Nov 17, 2013 at 12:34:10AM -0500, al davis wrote:
> > verilog
> > res X(1,2);.
>
> That statement is ambuguous.
> This part of spice syntax doesn't have a counterpart in verilog
> syntax.
yes. what do you suggest? raise an exception? i do not care too much,
but it should not segfault :)
> It is not a link back to the kind of device it matches, so that
> code is incorrect.
agreed.
> The real problem is that the constructor MODEL_SEMI**** is
> defective, so it should be fixed there. The purpose of
> _component_proto is exactly this, so the constructor must
> initialize it.
hmm which value for _component_proto would be correct? if i don't want
an unconditional resistor, then i will have to catch the null pointer
somewhere within MODEL_CARD.
> [..]
> I think for the future we should consider eliminating the
> MODEL_CARD hierarchy completely.
sounds reasonable. and as a consequence "res X(1 2);" will no longer run
into the spice "model"...
regards
felix
- [Gnucap-devel] problem with clone_instance, Felix Salfelder, 2013/11/16
- Re: [Gnucap-devel] problem with clone_instance, al davis, 2013/11/17
- Re: [Gnucap-devel] problem with clone_instance,
Felix Salfelder <=
- Re: [Gnucap-devel] problem with clone_instance, al davis, 2013/11/17
- Re: [Gnucap-devel] problem with clone_instance, Felix Salfelder, 2013/11/18
- Re: [Gnucap-devel] problem with clone_instance, al davis, 2013/11/24
- Re: [Gnucap-devel] problem with clone_instance, al davis, 2013/11/24
- Re: [Gnucap-devel] problem with clone_instance, Felix Salfelder, 2013/11/25