Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'Cadence'.
Found 3 results
Hi, While running simulation , i am getting the below mentioned error . Can anyone help me to fix this error. ncsim: *E,IMPDLL: Unable to load the implicit shared object. OSDLERROR: /prj/.../v/_sv_export.so: failed to map segment from shared object: Operation not permitted. ncsim: *W,LIBRUN: Could not load the dynamic library: ./INCA_libs/irun.lnx86.13.10.nc/librun System ERROR: ./INCA_libs/irun.lnx86.13.10.nc/librun.so: failed to map segment from shared object: Operation not permitted. ncsim: *F,NOFDPI: Function main not found in any of the shared object specified with -SV_LIB switchncsim: *E,IMPDLL: Unable to load the implicit shared object. Thanks Sidharth
Q1) What is the difference between Incisive Enterprise Simulator (IES) and Incisive Unified Simulator (IUS)? Q2) If you are from Cadence (or even if you are not), how can I easily find this information on Cadence.com? (Feel free to embarrass me and show how in a few steps I can find the answer. I just spent too long looking, with no success.) Context: I'm trying to determine if some simulations are using a different set of licenses than others. (subset?, superset?)
May a module or interface have default 'no-connect' port connections, for ports that we don't need to connect? I need to use an interface which is shared between testbenches. I instantiate it a lot and don't use many of the ports (i.e. they can be 'no connects') Using Cadence irun, I get this warning when I don't connect inputs to the interface: ncelab: *W,CUVWSI With tasks/functions, I can have a default value for an input argument. Is there anything similar for interfaces (or modules for that matter)? Rather than creating a bunch of dummy inputs for these ports that are not relevant to me, I'd like to change the interface somehow to clear up the warnings for cases where I don't want to use them. trying to clean up some warnings, thanks Note: the interface inputs mentioned are being used for a small piece of internal control logic in the interface. I suppose someone might suggest using parameterized interfaces. I don't recall offhand, but believe there is a reason that we are not using a parameterized interface for this. I'll have to check with the original developer.