Old Fortran SPICE

J

Jean-Pierre Coulon

Guest
I have tried to install this version of SPICE from the site:

http://www.gigascale.org/pubs/downloads/spice/index.htm

(by clicking on Unix in the Spice2 paragraph you reach:
spice2.unix.tar.gz

By gunzipping and tarring this archive I get these files:

total 1409
-r--r--r-- 1 coulon 121083 Sep 28 1990 guide.prt
-r--r--rw- 1 coulon 575500 Sep 28 1990 spice.f
-r--r--r-- 1 coulon 9460 Sep 28 1990 unix.c
-r--r--r-- 1 coulon 5535 Sep 28 1990 benchmark.in
-r--r--r-- 1 coulon 264958 Sep 28 1990 benchmark.out

What are the correct compiling and linking commands to get the
right executable file ? By compiling spice.f and unix.c separately
I get a *lot* of warnings and errors.

Regards,

(remove cacassepam to reply presonally)

Jean-Pierre Coulon E-mail:
coulon@cacassepam.obs-nice.fr
Observatoire de la Côte d'Azur
Département FRESNEL, groupe ILGA
BP 4229
06304 NICE Cedex 4

Tel (33) {0}4 92 00 31 58 Fax (33) {0}4 92 00 31 38
 
Jean-Pierre Coulon wrote:
I have tried to install this version of SPICE from the site:

http://www.gigascale.org/pubs/downloads/spice/index.htm

(by clicking on Unix in the Spice2 paragraph you reach:
spice2.unix.tar.gz

By gunzipping and tarring this archive I get these files:

total 1409
-r--r--r-- 1 coulon 121083 Sep 28 1990 guide.prt
-r--r--rw- 1 coulon 575500 Sep 28 1990 spice.f
-r--r--r-- 1 coulon 9460 Sep 28 1990 unix.c
-r--r--r-- 1 coulon 5535 Sep 28 1990 benchmark.in
-r--r--r-- 1 coulon 264958 Sep 28 1990 benchmark.out

What are the correct compiling and linking commands to get the
right executable file ? By compiling spice.f and unix.c separately
I get a *lot* of warnings and errors.

Regards,
Click to expand...
No idea, but why on earth do you want to use a fortran spice? My view,
its pointless.

Try http://ngspice.sourceforge.net/ and get ngspice c source code.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html

Understanding, is itself an emotion, i.e. a feeling.
Emotions or feelings can only be "understood" by
consciousness. "Understanding" consciousness can
therefore only be understood by consciousness itself,
therefore the "hard problem" of consciousness, is
intrinsically unsolvable.

Physics is proven incomplete, that is, no
understanding of the parts of a system can
explain all aspects of the whole of such system.
 
In article <A7nsb.56$d55.11@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>,
"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> writes:
Jean-Pierre Coulon wrote:
I have tried to install this version of SPICE from the site:

http://www.gigascale.org/pubs/downloads/spice/index.htm

(by clicking on Unix in the Spice2 paragraph you reach:
spice2.unix.tar.gz

By gunzipping and tarring this archive I get these files:

total 1409
-r--r--r-- 1 coulon 121083 Sep 28 1990 guide.prt
-r--r--rw- 1 coulon 575500 Sep 28 1990 spice.f
-r--r--r-- 1 coulon 9460 Sep 28 1990 unix.c
-r--r--r-- 1 coulon 5535 Sep 28 1990 benchmark.in
-r--r--r-- 1 coulon 264958 Sep 28 1990 benchmark.out

What are the correct compiling and linking commands to get the
right executable file ? By compiling spice.f and unix.c separately
I get a *lot* of warnings and errors.

Regards,

No idea, but why on earth do you want to use a fortran spice? My view,
its pointless.

The old fortran spice is actually useful, and kind-of
Click to expand...
works easier for simple simulations if you don't want
to use X windows for graphing.

The old spice isn't that hard to compile -- and using
the f2c program (available on netlib) might be a good
first step.

Up-to-date fortran compilers sometimes have troubles
with the archaic fortran usage (e.g. using doubles
to store characters.)

In general, the newer spices are much better.

John
 
John S. Dyson wrote:
In article <A7nsb.56$d55.11@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>,
"Kevin Aylward" <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> writes:
Jean-Pierre Coulon wrote:
I have tried to install this version of SPICE from the site:

http://www.gigascale.org/pubs/downloads/spice/index.htm

(by clicking on Unix in the Spice2 paragraph you reach:
spice2.unix.tar.gz

By gunzipping and tarring this archive I get these files:

total 1409
-r--r--r-- 1 coulon 121083 Sep 28 1990 guide.prt
-r--r--rw- 1 coulon 575500 Sep 28 1990 spice.f
-r--r--r-- 1 coulon 9460 Sep 28 1990 unix.c
-r--r--r-- 1 coulon 5535 Sep 28 1990 benchmark.in
-r--r--r-- 1 coulon 264958 Sep 28 1990 benchmark.out

What are the correct compiling and linking commands to get the
right executable file ? By compiling spice.f and unix.c separately
I get a *lot* of warnings and errors.

Regards,

No idea, but why on earth do you want to use a fortran spice? My
view, its pointless.

The old fortran spice is actually useful, and kind-of
works easier for simple simulations if you don't want
to use X windows for graphing.

The old spice isn't that hard to compile -- and using
the f2c program (available on netlib) might be a good
first step.

Up-to-date fortran compilers sometimes have troubles
with the archaic fortran usage (e.g. using doubles
to store characters.)

In general, the newer spices are much better.

John
Click to expand...
Yes. The reason I recommend the ngspice for Unix for those that want to
do source code stuff, is that it has fixed lots of bugs. It is an
ongoing project, so it still seems err... non optimum to spend much
effort on something that is pretty much dated.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html

Understanding, is itself an emotion, i.e. a feeling.
Emotions or feelings can only be "understood" by
consciousness. "Understanding" consciousness can
therefore only be understood by consciousness itself,
therefore the "hard problem" of consciousness, is
intrinsically unsolvable.

Physics is proven incomplete, that is, no
understanding of the parts of a system can
explain all aspects of the whole of such system.
 
Kevin et al:

[snip]
No idea, but why on earth do you want to use a fortran spice? My view,
its pointless.
[snip]
Click to expand...

Modern Fortran [F90/F95] has come a long way from "old FORTRAN".

A new version [F2000?] is out for draft commentary in ISO even as this is
typed.

I still have and use several Fortran codes for useful and unique CAE/CAD and
many of these have never been migrated to C/C++.

Some are unique and almost irreplaceable.

For Spice these days I use the [free] LT Spice from Linear Technologies.

[Thanks Mike!]

Still I have a somewhat rhetorical...

Question?

Has anyone ever migrated any of the old FORTRAN Spice(s) to modern Fortran?

--
Peter
Consultant
Indialantic By-the-Sea, FL
 
Peter O. Brackett wrote:

Kevin et al:

[snip]


No idea, but why on earth do you want to use a fortran spice? My view,
its pointless.


[snip]

Modern Fortran [F90/F95] has come a long way from "old FORTRAN".

A new version [F2000?] is out for draft commentary in ISO even as this is
typed.

I still have and use several Fortran codes for useful and unique CAE/CAD and
many of these have never been migrated to C/C++.

Some are unique and almost irreplaceable.

For Spice these days I use the [free] LT Spice from Linear Technologies.

[Thanks Mike!]

Still I have a somewhat rhetorical...

Question?

Has anyone ever migrated any of the old FORTRAN Spice(s) to modern Fortran?

--
Peter
Consultant
Indialantic By-the-Sea, FL



Welll.... where do you thing PSpice came from...
Click to expand...


Charlie
Edmondson Engineering
Unique Solutions to Unusual Problems
 
Kevin Aylward <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
: Jean-Pierre Coulon wrote:
:> I have tried to install this version of SPICE from the site:
:>
:> http://www.gigascale.org/pubs/downloads/spice/index.htm

[ . . . . . ]

:> What are the correct compiling and linking commands to get the
:> right executable file ? By compiling spice.f and unix.c separately
:> I get a *lot* of warnings and errors.
:>
:> Regards,

: No idea, but why on earth do you want to use a fortran spice? My view,
: its pointless.

: Try http://ngspice.sourceforge.net/ and get ngspice c source code.

I second Kevin's point about getting a newer SPICE. However, I would
recommend getting tclspice instead of ngspice.

http://tclspice.sourceforge.net/

Tclspice is a superset of ngspice, and has incorporated more bugfixes.
It also allows SPICE2 poly attributes in controlled sources, which was
missing from SPICE3. Also, I just recently integrated GNU readline
into tclspice (although I don't think it's been incorporated into the
main sourceforge release by the lead developer yet). This provides
nice features like command line history, editing, etc.

Ngspice comes with the tclspice distribution automatically, so you're
not missing a thing.

Stuart
 
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 19:03:21 -0000, Stuart Brorson <sdb@cloud9.net>
wrote:

[snip]
I second Kevin's point about getting a newer SPICE. However, I would
recommend getting tclspice instead of ngspice.

http://tclspice.sourceforge.net/

Tclspice is a superset of ngspice, and has incorporated more bugfixes.
It also allows SPICE2 poly attributes in controlled sources, which was
missing from SPICE3. Also, I just recently integrated GNU readline
into tclspice (although I don't think it's been incorporated into the
main sourceforge release by the lead developer yet). This provides
nice features like command line history, editing, etc.

Ngspice comes with the tclspice distribution automatically, so you're
not missing a thing.

Stuart
Click to expand...
I'm curious. WHY would anyone want "poly" notation after experiencing
the convenience and readability of Algebraic behavioral notation?

"Poly" notation is such a non-intuitive scheme it must have been
dreamed up by a PHYSICIST ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
 
Jim Thompson <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
: On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 19:03:21 -0000, Stuart Brorson <sdb@cloud9.net>
: wrote:

: [snip]
:>I second Kevin's point about getting a newer SPICE. However, I would
:>recommend getting tclspice instead of ngspice.
:>
:>http://tclspice.sourceforge.net/
:>
:>Tclspice is a superset of ngspice, and has incorporated more bugfixes.
:>It also allows SPICE2 poly attributes in controlled sources, which was
:>missing from SPICE3. Also, I just recently integrated GNU readline
:>into tclspice (although I don't think it's been incorporated into the
:>main sourceforge release by the lead developer yet). This provides
:>nice features like command line history, editing, etc.
:>
:>Ngspice comes with the tclspice distribution automatically, so you're
:>not missing a thing.
:>
:>Stuart
:>

: I'm curious. WHY would anyone want "poly" notation after experiencing
: the convenience and readability of Algebraic behavioral notation?

'Cause lots of vendors (e.g. Analog Devices) supply SPICE2 models with
POLYs in them for their parts. I do a lot of board-level simulation,
and it's nice to be able to use vendor models without having to think
about how to fix them. (Famous last words . . . .)

: "Poly" notation is such a non-intuitive scheme it must have been
: dreamed up by a PHYSICIST ;-)

You mean as opposed to real engineering units like mils, feet, BTUs,
and psi?

Stuart
 
In article <vr7lbpboi4n856@corp.supernews.com>,
Stuart Brorson <sdb@cloud9.net> writes:
Kevin Aylward <kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:
: Jean-Pierre Coulon wrote:
:> I have tried to install this version of SPICE from the site:
:
:> http://www.gigascale.org/pubs/downloads/spice/index.htm

[ . . . . . ]

:> What are the correct compiling and linking commands to get the
:> right executable file ? By compiling spice.f and unix.c separately
:> I get a *lot* of warnings and errors.
:
:> Regards,

: No idea, but why on earth do you want to use a fortran spice? My view,
: its pointless.

: Try http://ngspice.sourceforge.net/ and get ngspice c source code.

I second Kevin's point about getting a newer SPICE. However, I would
recommend getting tclspice instead of ngspice.

The positive thing about the old fortran spice is that it doesnt'
Click to expand...
depend upon complicated graphical interfaces, and provides reasonably
good text output formatting. The original SPICE3 code provides
very poor text output.

Of course, the text output can be improved, but it is wrong
to imply that the SPICE2 stuff is unusable... In some applications
(unless you want to to lots of porting), the spice2g6 might be
MORE useful than the raw SPICE3 codebases.

I have 'enhanced' both codebases, and spice3 is better (also
the xspice addon stuff), but spice2g6 is very useful. Trying
to use recent fortran compilers might be 'challenging', and
even the g77 compiler chokes (I suspect that there is a switch
combo to make it work.)

f2c and using the c output does work for spice2gc (almost vanilla.)

John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top