X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id
	:subject:from:to:content-type;
	bh=TKJb542S6CmiIub7d3VprvO9g7Z92Y2+KdfPpEb0/oM=;
	b=IWbnAYOevv/Fyx4S/s1+6LJdk40njKI52kyHQDG5SaamYfBSmxPRhZJuUShADbVHIu
	cBIayYFG8A3UBdOHecpIhZJAUiXK0zlTQRvANvQtVTKGU3F9hH+P/MDSPZ3zvGj41Eys
	qBDxPI4w5gt2BaLgIcYJbQlG4QfFka6oPFHFDxy5iz0uBGcXBo2VA25Y/rtGgOyOqVwl
	GGIwNOjzoMq0AhL5yiRp7d45PewLjgv5kGTQmDoE4P4/9mx0m7pV2+U2BhL/9xkUdW8z
	HTa5Ge04KNIQOgmdQXTHurxs0q/hrx2HD94RRWHv5qwYtyxTw55KvrRm4GqzBX98+w/R
	nj/g==
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Received:	by 10.66.87.8 with SMTP id t8mr25536722paz.28.1358528964214; Fri,
	18 Jan 2013 09:09:24 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To:	<CACNnPRm2cmrwnd9cK7nnO0fEQPV4_fNM4B1C2=8n7j0hyTQfdA@mail.gmail.com>
References:	<CACNnPRkowensyyy0pneO0VJeDaMpaMqms-74wCwM=Rtd-bDQHg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<644026BD-F6E6-4533-B450-A91CAF83937A AT noqsi DOT com>
	<CACNnPRnyahDE8Hhhyc6+UFE6=55zmWVP1f8m=E-p4CJWOb=2=g AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<6C1F8807-DFAD-4256-8F70-BD4AF4EF3A3E AT noqsi DOT com>
	<CACNnPRmn1rLA8enjo6epUhyb2OTzoyzYzrj7S4qxHsHdfAeh-g AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<CABE3E91-466B-4769-99A5-85ACDE7E6A5C AT noqsi DOT com>
	<CACNnPRm2cmrwnd9cK7nnO0fEQPV4_fNM4B1C2=8n7j0hyTQfdA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
Date:	Fri, 18 Jan 2013 12:09:24 -0500
Message-ID:	<CAM2RGhQdadoEJD88UFKvbz_z-JrGPoVzoQvXBjcbk20-GUtL=w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] gnetlist hierarchy uref order setting
From:	Evan Foss <evanfoss AT gmail DOT com>
To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Reply-To:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

I like the idea of a mkefile generator. On the issue of spice commands
what I do is a bit messy from a programmers perspective but I just lay
them all out on the first or last page of a set of schematics. That
one page contains only spice stuff.

-Evan

On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Abhijit Kshirsagar
<abhijit86k AT gmail DOT com> wrote:
> Oh ok. Yes I agree with the spice commands being in a separate file,
> but I can't write the makefile by hand- simply because I (will) have
> too many symbols each with a schematic. So I think i'll have to try to
> write a makefile generator...
>
> -Abhijit
>
> On 1/17/13, John Doty <jpd AT noqsi DOT com> wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 16, 2013, at 11:21 PM, Abhijit Kshirsagar wrote:
>>
>>>> Interesting. Stuart seems not to have implemented refdes "munging" for
>>>> all of the components he lists at
>>>> http://www.brorson.com/gEDA/SPICE/x631.html.
>>>
>>> So does that count as a bug?
>>
>> I think so. Mismatch between code and documentation always counts as a bug
>> as far as I'm concerned.
>>
>>>
>>>> Put (hierarchy-traversal "disabled") in your gnetlistrc. Then I netlist
>>>> subcircuits separately and
>>>> let SPICE do the hierarchy expansion. See
>>>> http://www.brorson.com/gEDA/SPICE/intro.html.
>>>
>>> I've looked through this - and it seems to be the same as the RF
>>> example that ships with the gEDA distribution.
>>> As i understand, I need to generate the cir files from the
>>> sub-schematics first, then netlist the top level schematics.
>>
>> Yes. The spice-sdb back end normally does the inclusion of model files for
>> you. Even if you turn this off with -I, it inspects model files to figure
>> out whether they are macro models (.SUBCKT) or primitive model parameters
>> (.MODEL). Thus, all model files that a schematic page uses must exist prior
>> to invoking the netlister. I consider this a misfeature.
>>
>> Since SPICE has no scoping of subcircuit or model names, it is useless to
>> include the same model file repeatedly in different contexts, but that's
>> what spice-sdb does, unfortunately. I prefer to have a Makefile use "cat" to
>> assemble the final netlist from the individual subcircuit netlists.
>>
>>>
>>> Do most people use something like a makefile, when systems become
>>> large? Is there a makefile generator out there?
>>>
>>
>> I just write a Makefile. No generator.
>>
>>> I was hoping to have everything (including the SPICE simulation
>>> commands) in schematics only - so the end user only needs to keep
>>> gSCHEM open and navigate the hierarchy to see the entire design.
>>
>> Well, it makes more sense to me to edit things like .CONTROL sections in a
>> text editor rather than a graphics editor. And, as noted above, I prefer to
>> assemble the simulation file with "cat" rather than gnetlist: this gives me
>> much better control. Also, I often have very large test stimulus files,
>> megabytes of PWL commands, generated by separate scripts. It's not practical
>> to put *those* in a schematic. But if you want, you can put your extra stuff
>> in spice-directive symbols. You can even put multi-line code into the value=
>> attribute by editing the attribute as text ("ex" rather than "ee").
>>
>> John Doty              Noqsi Aerospace, Ltd.
>> http://www.noqsi.com/
>> jpd AT noqsi DOT com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ~Abhijit



-- 
Home
http://evanfoss.googlepages.com/
Work
http://forge.abcd.harvard.edu/gf/project/epl_engineering/wiki/

- Raw text -