Re: gEDA-user: 4538 symbole on the 4000 library

[sdb@xxxxxxxxxx (Stuart Brorson)]

Werner & Iznogood --

Thanks.  Actually, none of the parts you listed (except for the LM393
& 331) have SPICE models, IIRC, so we're safe.

In any event,  I always stress that one should manually *inspect* the
output of spice-sdb to verify that all components are hooked up
correctly. Trust, but verify.  The problem is that not everybody is
assiduous about checking their stuff. . . . .

Stuart


> 
> Hi Stuart,
> 
> On Saturday 29 January 2005 13:27, Stuart Brorson wrote:
> > > I've taken a look at that kind of error:
> > > "order of pinnumber in slotdef does not match pinseq order"
> >
> > A word of caution:
> >
> > There are situations where pinnumber != pinseq.  In particular, my
> > spice-sdb netlister triggers off of pinseq in order to know which
> > order to emit pins for SPICE netlisting.  This is because SPICE
> > .subckts require that the nets be listed in a particular order to
> > connect them correctly.  This order is not the same as the numbering
> > of the pins on the package.
> 
> That's true.
> 
> Lets take a look at 4000/4002-2.sym. Load it three times and attach 
> slot=1 and slot=2 to two of the symbols.
> 
> All three symbols have now different pinnumbering. Those with slot 
> attributes are wrong.
> 
> The solution is ordering the slotdef definitions:
> slotdef=1:2,3,4,5,1
> slotdef=2:12,11,10,9,13
> instead of:
> slotdef=1:1,2,3,4,5
> slotdef=2:13,12,11,10,9
> 
> The pinseq attribute will not change.
> 
> regards
> Werner
>