Sorry for the slow response, but I am actually on vacation now... Lance, To answer your #1 comment, I agree, we need quick solutions, but I think by providing a solution to SPICE parameter passing we are actually creating a bigger problem, which is that proprietary SPICE flavors will begin flourishing under IBIS which is the last thing I want to encourage. As I said it earlier, there is a solution already in the IBIS macro model library, and everybody could use it, even those who do not have *-AMS engines by substitution. Why is this SOLUTION not accepted, and why is the SPICE solution being pushed, which creates more problems? Regarding #2, it may be true that most tools have some issues even with the *-AMS languages, but at least the *-AMS specification is one common standard that ALL tools can adhere to. If we find discrepancies, we can start reading the language reference manuals (LRM) and request "bug fixes" from the tool vendor to ensure that they adhere to what the LRM says. With SPICE there is no such thing as a standard. Therefore every single implementation is valid. There is no way to bring the vendors together on it unless someone decides to write a standard SPICE language reference manual. Arpad =============================================================== -----Original Message----- From: Lance Wang [mailto:lwang@cadence.com] Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 9:27 PM To: Muranyi, Arpad; ibis@eda.org; ibis-macro@freelists.org Subject: RE: [ibis-macro] Re: Your presentation at Asia Summit Hi, Arpad, I would like to point out two things: 1. Every standard needs to be a good helper to solve real industry problems. If not, there is no life for it. What if standard development speed is slower than technology growing speed, please remember there is no way to let industry wait for it. And the reality is we will never catch the technology growing. So, seeking other solutions is the common way industry will go. 2. Almost there is no tool(s) will exactly follow the standard(s). They may be behind with some features and may be ahead on some features as well. Do you think the AMS tools you used are exactly followed AMS standard? Regards, Lance Wang Cadence Design Systems, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: ibis-macro-bounce@freelists.org [mailto:ibis-macro-bounce@freelists.org] On Behalf Of Muranyi, Arpad Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 8:09 PM To: ibis@eda.org; ibis-macro@freelists.org Subject: [ibis-macro] Re: Your presentation at Asia Summit Ian, I think your observation in the last paragraph of your message is correct, but this is exactly the problem. Whether we make this practice legal in IBIS or not is not the issue. The issue is that these proprietary solutions only work with their corresponding proprietary tools. IBIS was started and motivated exactly to eliminate that situation. These requests you and Lance are talking about is going in the exact opposite direction of the original goal IBIS was invented for. We might as well get rid of IBIS and all other efforts to have any industry standard modeling languages (*-AMS) then... Arpad ===================================================================== -----Original Message----- From: Dodd, Ian [mailto:ian_dodd@mentor.com] Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 2:52 PM To: Muranyi, Arpad; ibis@eda.org; ibis-macro@freelists.org Subject: RE: [ibis-macro] Re: Your presentation at Asia Summit Arpad, I want to support the customer to be provided with the best solutions. I have said many times, that I believe AMS is the best technical solution for full circuit simulation of the newer technologies. Unfortunately, there are two barriers to AMS adoption: the first is getting the majority of the EDA vendors to make their best technology available in their SI tools, the second is the training of model creators to use a new languages. Progress is being made on both these fronts, but it is not as fast as I would like to see. Switching from the AMS issue to SPICE: I think we have all agreed that for us to try to create a standard for SPICE is not a fruitful activity. I do believe that SI tools should be able to pass parameters to SPICE syntax sub-circuits that represent the behavior of IBIS components. The SI tools that implement this feature will have to know the exact syntax (and parameter data types) to be used for each simulator that is supported. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that at least two SI tool vendors already have proprietary enhancements to allow parameters to be passed to SPICE sub-circuits. Ian --------------------------------------------------------------------- IBIS Macro website : http://www.eda.org/pub/ibis/macromodel_wip/ IBIS Macro reflector: http://www.freelists.org/list/ibis-macro To unsubscribe send an email: To: ibis-macro-request@freelists.org Subject: unsubscribe -------------------------------------------------------------------- |For help or to subscribe/unsubscribe, e-mail majordomo@eda-stds.org |with the appropriate command message(s) in the body: | | help | subscribe ibis <optional e-mail address, if different> | subscribe ibis-users <optional e-mail address, if different> | unsubscribe ibis <optional e-mail address, if different> | unsubscribe ibis-users <optional e-mail address, if different> | |or e-mail a request to ibis-request@eda-stds.org. | |IBIS reflector archives exist under: | | http://www.eda-stds.org/pub/ibis/email_archive/ Recent | http://www.eda-stds.org/pub/ibis/users_archive/ Recent | http://www.eda-stds.org/pub/ibis/email/ E-mail since 1993Received on Mon Nov 13 22:57:20 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Nov 13 2006 - 22:58:23 PST