On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 19:48:35 -0400 al davis <ad...@freeelectron.net> wrote: > The main thing is to remove the requirement to specify a step size for > transient analysis, and if you don't specify a step size, it shows > all steps, as if "trace all".
I think what is now in the transient-3 branch (transient, rebased a few times). is almost ready. The latest commit has changes to time step control related to the first few steps. It now makes a real attempt to have even the first step having a proper step size, with intent that it is not necessary to specify a step size for accuracy, including accuracy of downstream applications. An oscillator circuit (Thanks to Richard Gipps) has been very helpful in making this progress. It now gets stepping correct for the oscillator, a fully autonomous circuit, including startup, even if the user strobe (printed step interval) is unreasonably large, such as 200x the oscillator period, even with relaxed tolerances, then with tightened tolerances seems accurate enough for distortion and noise measurements. In the existing transient-3, I did not update the test references (tests/==out) so many regressions appear to fail, in the sense that a text comparison shows a difference. New results are temporarily there as "tests/0922". In this case, it is necessary to manually look at each one to determine if the new output is good or not. I have done this, as much as I could, and the new results look good. I need others to check it too. Is new (0922) close enough to old (==out)? When you run the test, does it match new (0922) as it should? al. _______________________________________________ Gnucap-devel mailing list Gnucap-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucap-devel