[ibis-macro] Re: BIRD 121.1 discussion
- From: "Walter Katz" <wkatz@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <kwillis@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'IBIS-ATM'" <ibis-macro@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 07:10:47 -0400 (EDT)
Ken,
1. How does the EDA tool know to insert the full path to the DLL for Model
Specific parameters?
2. What if the IBIS models are distributed into multiple folders in the
EDA tools library management systems?
Walter
-----Original Message-----
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ken Willis
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 7:03 AM
To: Arpad_Muranyi@xxxxxxxxxx; 'IBIS-ATM'
Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: BIRD 121.1 discussion
Hi Arpad,
I agree with you that the most straightforward approach is to simply
specify the full path. Users would go in and set this once for their
project.
I also don't see the real need for DLL_Path at all. When the user assigns
an AMI model in their project, the tool already has to know the path to
the DLL. Looking locally (in the same directory as the DLL) for supporting
files should be default behavior anyway for the DLL. If the specific model
has a bunch of supporting files in some specific directory structure, then
you can easily use a Model_Specific parameter to point to some
"other_stuff"
directory where it will find those supporting files. But that is a
Model_Specific thing. We don't have to make it a universal keyword.
So to me we already have all the support needed in the spec to handle
this.
We need to stop inventing new Reserved_Parameters all the time to do
things we can already do. The spec is getting complicated enough as-is,
and new Reserved_Parameters should be added only when needed. I don't
think we need to in this case.
Thanks,
Ken Willis
Sigrity, Inc.
860-871-7070
kwillis@xxxxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 10:31 AM
To: IBIS-ATM
Subject: [ibis-macro] BIRD 121.1 discussion
Hello,
We were running out of time yesterday, so I didn't continue with my
question, but I still feel that my question was not answered adequately
about DLL_Path.
It was stated that for the model it is irrelevant whether this is a
relative or full path.
It was also stated that relative paths don't work when different parts of
the project are on different drives, so if an EDA tool passes a relative
path to the DLL in such a situation it should be considered a bug.
Having said that, we do we want to put in the spec the option of passing a
relative path to the model?
Why shouldn't the spec say full path only?
I feel if we put relative path in the spec, we are opening the door for
the EDA vendors to write bugs.
Are we really trying to encourage that?
Could someone please explain why it is necessary to put relative path in
the spec if it opens the possibility for problems?
Thanks,
Arpad
======================================================
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IBIS Macro website : http://www.eda.org/pub/ibis/macromodel_wip/
IBIS Macro reflector: //www.freelists.org/list/ibis-macro
To unsubscribe send an email:
To: ibis-macro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: unsubscribe
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IBIS Macro website : http://www.eda.org/pub/ibis/macromodel_wip/
IBIS Macro reflector: //www.freelists.org/list/ibis-macro
To unsubscribe send an email:
To: ibis-macro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: unsubscribe
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IBIS Macro website : http://www.eda.org/pub/ibis/macromodel_wip/
IBIS Macro reflector: //www.freelists.org/list/ibis-macro
To unsubscribe send an email:
To: ibis-macro-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: unsubscribe
Other related posts:
