RE: SPICE compatibility issues

The more I think of this, the more I am beginning to wonder.

It seems that the purpose of the SPICE compatibility in the
LRM was to make it easy to (re)use the already available
SPICE elements in Verilog-AMS netlists without having to
rewrite them as Verilog-AMS modules.  However, the LRM
clearly states that these types of "Verilog-AMS models"
will basically become tool dependent.

I think it is a wonderful thing that people are willing
to make public donations of their work and offer libraries
which contain SPICE equivalents written in Verilog-AMS.
However, it seems that a library would still remain
SPICE flavor specific, so we would need multiple libraries
to cover the different kinds of SPICE flavors that exist.

Is the proposal suggesting multiple libraries corresponding
to the various SPICE flavors?

Arpad
===========================================================

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-verilog-ams@eda.org [mailto:owner-verilog-ams@eda.org] On Behalf Of Kevin Cameron
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 2:26 PM
To: Jonathan Sanders
Cc: Marq Kole; verilog-ams@eda.org
Subject: Re: SPICE compatibility issues

...snip...

I think creating a library of standard Verilog-AMS modules based on the 
SPICE models makes good sense at this point in time. Netlists should be 
portable, tools that currently produce SPICE netlists will have to 
produce Verilog-AMS in the future. Also, I don't think developing a 
validation suite makes as much sense without some way of limiting the 
scope to what people will actually be using - i.e. the initial 
validation suite would validate implementation/execution for the 
standard libraries.

...snip...