Re: [ng-spice] spice3f5 benchmark
--
> -1- you mention that the spice3f5 code is quite bad. Can you quantify this?
> What about the kernel code: stamp generation, sparse matrix code,
>analysis code?
> Is this easy to structure and optimize these specific parts?
My opinion is that the worst part of the spice3 code is the front-end. The
code written by Quarles (ckt, ni,inp,dev)and Kundert(sparse) is not so bad on
the point of view of numerical algorithms and software design. The code is
easier to maintain. An homogenous coding style (Quarles) has been used(names,
pointers,...). A small number (?!? I think) of memory leaks should be found
in these modules. However Some effort have to be made on the analysis parts
to integrate modern analysis algorithms to enhance spice3's possibilities.
The front-end has been coded with a more free style. Pointer are allocated
and not freed. Strings are copied every where etc...
I am not an expert of the software policies questions(GPL LGPL,...) but a
good question is:
Should we spend our time to track and fix the enormous amount of memory leaks
in fte, cp and misc and other ugly things or completly rewrite these modules
? I think that is the way followed by the new simulator project. I think that
professional designers like Reid should help to build or complete the new
simulator design chart. All the specifications needed for a good and modern
simulator.
Dezai
HotBot - Search smarter.
http://www.hotbot.com
Partial thread listing: