Yes. Some IBIS-AMI tools already launch a separate executable for each
model instance. What's left to build a multi-platform system is
inter-process communication and possibly remote execution. The required
data I/O is not very much, so performance could still be good, at least
for time domain simulations.
At one point a demand for this seemed to be building, since some IBIS-AMI
models were being issued for just one platform. What does one do with a
Windows-only Tx and a Linux-only Rx? Or a 32 bit Tx and 64 bit Rx? But
those issues have not become urgent, as far as I can tell. 32 bit models
are becoming rare, and at least Windows and Linux are usually both
supported.
Mike
From: ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad
Sent: Tuesday, July 3, 2018 4:35 PM
To: ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ibis-editorial] Re: Another editorial issue with 6.1
Would that be like having a computer farm to which a simulation is
split up and not all of the individual computers having the same OS?
Thanks,
Arpad
====================================================
From: Mike LaBonte [mailto:mlabonte@xxxxxxxxxx] ;
Sent: Tuesday, July 3, 2018 12:42 PM
To: Muranyi, Arpad <Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx> >; ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [ibis-editorial] Re: Another editorial issue with 6.1
It is theoretically possible to have IBIS-AMI models for different
platforms in the same simulation, although I am not aware of any
implementations of that. We should not add any language that rules it out.
The sentence from Arpad is fine though.
Mike
From: ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad
Sent: Tuesday, July 3, 2018 1:31 PM
To: ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [ibis-editorial] Re: Another editorial issue with 6.1
Mike,
Good catch. I like your suggestion for the first sentence, but I still
wonder about
the second one. What bothers me about it is the "for many combinations of
operating system, architecture, and compiler" part, because it gives me
the
impression that we can have multiple combinations of OS, etc. in the same
simulation. :)
I would try to say this without using the word "combination" somehow.
Multiple occurrences, without duplication, of Executable are permitted, to
support executable model files for several different operating systems,
architectures, and compilers for the same algorithmic model.
Thanks,
Arpad
======================================================================
From: ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[mailto:ibis-editorial-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mirmak, Michael
Sent: Tuesday, July 3, 2018 12:15 PM
To: ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ibis-editorial@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [ibis-editorial] Another editorial issue with 6.1
I believe there's a minor editorial issue with the usage of "platform" vs.
"operating system" and "architecture" in IBIS 6.1. While there are a few
fixes that could be made in this area, the most striking one is on page.
172:
The EDA tool will check for the compiler information and verify if the
executable model file is compatible with the operating system and
platform.
Multiple occurrences, without duplication, of Executable are permitted to
allow for providing executable model files for as many combinations of
operating system platforms and compilers for the same algorithmic model.
I believe this should be:
The EDA tool will check for the compiler information and verify if the
executable model file is compatible with the platform (operating system
and architecture).
Multiple occurrences, without duplication, of Executable are permitted, to
support executable model files for many combinations of operating system,
architecture, and compiler for the same algorithmic model.
* MM
