Re: Model name question

Hi, Scott and Arpad,

I like the idea of formalizing this. At the
same time, should we consider allowing
more than 20 characters is a buffer name?

Cadence uses COMP + MODEL now, and
also makes the combination unique within
a simulation (default setting).

- Lynne

At 03:28 PM 7/12/2001 -0700, Scott McMorrow wrote:
>Arpad,
>
>I believe many simulator vendors already identify models
>internally by the following tuple:
>
>(component_name, model_name)
>
>I would recommend formalizing this in future IBIS specifications.
>We need not specify the exact format of the naming convention,
>but we do need to clarify that a model should be identified by
>component_name and model_name, since model_names are
>not unique.
>
>If we were all real sticklers, we would require tools to identify
>a model by the following tuple:
>
>(component_name, model_name, revision)
>
>Many a time I have been bit by multiple revisions of models laying
>around ... especially with automatic path searches of model directories,
>where the last model loaded is the one that is used.
>
>regards,
>
>scott
>
>
>"Muranyi, Arpad" wrote:
>
> > All,
> >
> > I would like to find out whether there is a need to include the
> > component name as part of the buffer names for the [Model]
> > keyword in an IBIS file. The reasoning goes like this:
> >
> > If there are two different IBIS files with buffer names inside
> > them which are the same (while the electrical characteristics
> > of the models are different) and these two models are used in
> > the same simulation, could the tool lose track of which one is
> > which?
> >
> > Do tools make these names unique for simulations to prevent
> > this from happening so that me as a model maker wouldn't have
> > to worry about this?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Arpad
> > =================================================================
>
>--
>Scott McMorrow
>Principal Engineer
>SiQual, Signal Quality Engineering
>18735 SW Boones Ferry Road
>Tualatin, OR 97062-3090
>(503) 885-1231
>http://www.siqual.com
>

 
Received on Mon Jul 16 10:45:41 2001