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 >
