On Fri, 18 Feb 2005, Barna Farag� wrote: > Hi Anthony, > I was using GtkWave 1.3.19 windows port. The main problems about ps timeing > was on my code ( my code generates directly .vcd files)... I used a wrong > vcd fileformat spec. Thanks for help.
Glad to hear you figured out the problem. > By the way, I start to porting the latest version to Winsux in my rest > time... If anyone could/want help me from this list :) -rw-rw-r-- 1 bybell bybell 2346381 Feb 18 08:30 gtkwave-1.3.54_w9x.zip 1.3 series appears clean and compiles via a ./configure ; ./make from the MinGW command line. As compared to the unix version it's exactly the same except for 3 things: 1) no "open new viewer" due to lack of fork() 2) VZT loading isn't multithreaded on SMP machines (all my SMP boxes run unix.) 3) slower. this was covered on geda-dev in detail recently. ...because of #3 I really need to look at the gdk library source for windows sometime to see why that's the case. I might be better off drawing lines/boxes into my own private bitmap through software or whatever. I'm really curious if they're doing something similar to an XSync() (for windows) after every graphics op. *shrugs* On Fri, 18 Feb 2005, Aubanel MONNIER wrote: |Actually, I did port a pre-version of GTKWave 2 to windows (Visual C++). I |cannot easily access the source, but this is mainly plumbering (the hard |parts are to get a correct config.h and the management of shared object |code). Problem is the solutions I've used to solve this problems are quite |ugly (use of a custom config.h + modifications at build time, all the code |built staticlly, etc.). If you are interested, I can ask for the source. For me, MinGW was definitely an easier way to go about porting as you don't have to worry about fighting the Visual C++ environment. Experienced VC++/Windows users might disagree as to what environment is better. =) Regards, Tony
