| Author |
Message |
Andrew Beckett
Guest
|
 Posted:
Mon Nov 29, 2004 5:53 pm Post subject:
Re: get all wires connected to a pin |
|
|
OK, so how are you redefining it then? Normal attempts to redefined built-in
C-level functions get this kind of error:
*Error* putd: given function is internal and can not be redefined -
simplifyFilename
That's why I said it was academic.
The function is used all over the place - both in Cadence code, customer code,
and in various third party integrations. I couldn't hope to guess how such a
widely used function was being used. It's quite possible that some usages
depend on the result not being a symbolic link, nor any element in the path
being a link - I couldn't guess that.
If you don't want to explain to the group how you're redefining this, email me
directly.
Andrew.
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 21:25:07 -0500, fogh <oghdayan_AT@xs4all_dot.nl> wrote:
| Quote: | Andrew Beckett wrote:
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 23:50:47 -0500, fogh <oghdayan_AT@xs4all_dot.nl> wrote:
No no, it works with the original, and it still works with the
overwritten.
In that case, I don't know why you're asking... (it's academic, since you
can't do it anyway).
Andrew,
Outside this newsgroup, it is not that academic, and it is not that
impossible either.
I got a solution, and I don t know wether to deploy it since I don t
know the risk because I don t know exactly what this function is used for.
I know that the value returned by the modified func is unique for a
given "actual" file. But if for there is some code that relies on every
element in the path to be a directory (and not a symlink) there would
still be trouble.
Can t you tell me more about how this function is used in the CDS and
vendor code you know about ? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
fogh
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 02, 2004 10:58 pm Post subject:
Re: get all wires connected to a pin |
|
|
Andrew,
Yes I am redefining it, in my own little test environment.
Andrew Beckett wrote:
| Quote: | OK, so how are you redefining it then? Normal attempts to redefined built-in
C-level functions get this kind of error:
*Error* putd: given function is internal and can not be redefined -
simplifyFilename
That's why I said it was academic.
The function is used all over the place - both in Cadence code, customer code,
and in various third party integrations. I couldn't hope to guess how such a
widely used function was being used. It's quite possible that some usages
depend on the result not being a symbolic link, nor any element in the path
being a link - I couldn't guess that.
If you don't want to explain to the group how you're redefining this, email me
directly.
Andrew.
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 21:25:07 -0500, fogh <oghdayan_AT@xs4all_dot.nl> wrote:
Andrew Beckett wrote:
On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 23:50:47 -0500, fogh <oghdayan_AT@xs4all_dot.nl> wrote:
No no, it works with the original, and it still works with the
overwritten.
In that case, I don't know why you're asking... (it's academic, since you
can't do it anyway).
Andrew,
Outside this newsgroup, it is not that academic, and it is not that
impossible either.
I got a solution, and I don t know wether to deploy it since I don t
know the risk because I don t know exactly what this function is used for.
I know that the value returned by the modified func is unique for a
given "actual" file. But if for there is some code that relies on every
element in the path to be a directory (and not a symlink) there would
still be trouble.
Can t you tell me more about how this function is used in the CDS and
vendor code you know about ? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Beckett
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sun Dec 05, 2004 9:49 pm Post subject:
Re: get all wires connected to a pin |
|
|
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 18:58:40 +0100, fogh
<cad_support@skipthisandunderscores.catena.nl> wrote:
| Quote: | Andrew,
Yes I am redefining it, in my own little test environment.
|
OK, but how are you redefining it? As I said before, as far
as I know, you can't redefine functions written in C (you can
overload them within a SKILL++ lexical scope, but that's not the same
thing). So I'm intrigued to know how you've redefined it.
Andrew.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in