Is C-shell really mandatory for running Cadence tools?

[spectrallypure]

Hi all!

Years ago, when I was introduced to Cadence, I was told that the C-
shell was the "de facto" shell to be used for running its various
tools. Now, after years of using this shell as my default shell in all
the linux machines in which I work, I am wondering if there is really
the necessity to use this particular shell for running the Cadence
tools at all, or if I could use any other one as well.

My main motivation is that every now and then I find it necessary to
create shell scripts for tasks that have nothing to do with Cadence,
and I think that it would be more efficient to use a more recent shell
for these programming tasks, like, for instance, the bash shell.
Moreover, it seems that everywhere on the internet people advise
against the use of the c-shell, and some even anticipate its
deprecation in future linux releases!

So, would it be perfectly possible to use, for instance, the bash
shell for running Cadence tools? After all, from the Cadence point of
view, isn't it all about defining the right environment variables?

Thanks in advance for any comments/ideas!

Cheers,

Jorge

 

On Sep 9, 10:17 am, spectrallypure <jorgela...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi all!

Years ago, when I was introduced to Cadence, I was told that the C-
shell was the "de facto" shell to be used for running its various
tools. Now, after years of using this shell as my default shell in all
the linux machines in which I work, I am wondering if there is really
the necessity to use this particular shell for running the Cadence
tools at all, or if I could use any other one as well.

No. There is no such restriction, and never was.

Cadence's own wrapper scripts (in tools/bin, tools/dfII/bin, etc.) are
a mix of ksh, sh, csh, perl, etc. But mostly ksh.

-Jay-

 

[spectrallypure]

On Sep 9, 11:19 pm, jayl-n...@accelerant.net wrote:

On Sep 9, 10:17 am, spectrallypure <jorgela...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi all!

Years ago, when I was introduced to Cadence, I was told that the C-
shell was the "de facto" shell to be used for running its various
tools. Now, after years of using this shell as my default shell in all
the linux machines in which I work, I am wondering if there is really
the necessity to use this particular shell for running the Cadence
tools at all, or if I could use any other one as well.

No.  There is no such restriction, and never was.

Cadence's own wrapper scripts (in tools/bin, tools/dfII/bin, etc.) are
a mix of ksh, sh, csh, perl, etc.  But mostly ksh.

-Jay-

OK Jay; thanks so much for clarifying that!

 

[Pete nospam Zakel]

In article <f8ea807b-9f31-4892-85f6-070765d8dc9b@e20g2000vbn.googlegroups.com> spectrallypure <jorgelagos@gmail.com> writes:

So, would it be perfectly possible to use, for instance, the bash
shell for running Cadence tools? After all, from the Cadence point of
view, isn't it all about defining the right environment variables?

Jorge,

The shell you use interactively doesn't matter. For scripting, C-shell is
definitely more overhead than other shells, and most Cadence scripts nowadays
are written as ksh scripts. A properly written script specifies the shell it
uses in the first line of the script, so it doesn't matter what your
interactive shell is.

-Pete Zakel
(phz@seeheader.nospam)

Law of Probable Dispersal:
Whatever it is that hits the fan will not be evenly distributed.

 

[me at]

13 Sep 2010 13:44:21 -0700 Pete nospam Zakel <pxhxz@cadence.com> wrote:
| In article <f8ea807b-9f31-4892-85f6-070765d8dc9b@e20g2000vbn.googlegroups.com> spectrallypure <jorgelagos@gmail.com> writes:
|>So, would it be perfectly possible to use, for instance, the bash
|>shell for running Cadence tools? After all, from the Cadence point of
|>view, isn't it all about defining the right environment variables?
|
| Jorge,
|
| The shell you use interactively doesn't matter. For scripting, C-shell is
| definitely more overhead than other shells, and most Cadence scripts nowadays
| are written as ksh scripts. A properly written script specifies the shell it
| uses in the first line of the script, so it doesn't matter what your
| interactive shell is.
|
| -Pete Zakel
| (phz@seeheader.nospam)
|
| Law of Probable Dispersal:
| Whatever it is that hits the fan will not be evenly distributed.



Yeah, mine is tcsh but all of my scripts are writtin in sh.

--
Vic