Re: Use of femto scaling in IBIS models

> At one time we were debating whether in cases like this, when the parser didn't
> agree with the spec, which one should take precedence. If I remember correctly
> we voted for the parser. In this light, the Intel models are not illegal.
> (Someone correct me if I am wrong).

I don't question what may have have been previously discussed ... but
in my mind the only correct answer is that the spec ALWAYS takes
precedence, no matter what you're talking about. If the spec and the
parser disagree, you fix the parser.

If you want the parser to have precedence, then make IT the standard
with its source code freely available to the world, and make a note in
the spec that it is only an example and to refer to the parser.

> In my opinion it doesn't make sense to have to say 0.01 pA for 10
> fA and so on. Even though these kind of numbers are usually noise and outside
> the usually measurable range, I would still allow them for the sake of
> consistency and completeness. You never know, someone might even need them in
> some cases... (especially with capacitances).

I brought this issue up some two years ago with one or more of you.
Will "a" come to mean "alto" (1e-18) some time in the future? (It
already does on at least one simulator.) You need to get this nailed
down firmly. Otherwise you don't have a spec.

Regards,
Andy
Received on Wed Nov 27 06:11:04 1996