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.
