Does QSpice regressively search the Symbol directories added to the Symbol and IP Browser?
Len
I don’t think so… but there is a trick I normally use to refresh the Symbol & IP Browser. Right-click anywhere in the Symbol & IP Browser > Edit User-Supplied Directories → OK. Do nothing in Edit User-Supplied Directories, just press OK and it will refresh the Symbol & IP Browser.
The goal is to place a common symbols directory and have QSpice regressively search for matching criteria specially for finding dlls listed in the custom symbols.
Sadly, I performed the steps you recommended. No improvements.
I also deleted the common symbols directory from the search list and re-added it in. Same issue.
It appears you can use a common symbol directory for searching. As long as the symbols in the subdirectory of the common symbol dir is symbols ONLY, not a problem. The issue is if the symbol calls a cblock in the same directory. Apparently the .dll call doesn’t know how to be parsed in the symbol list.
Len
DLL? The directory that contains that .dll must be individually added to the Symbol & IP Browser.
For example, my custom library contains a custom DLL symbol directory, but to use it, that specific directory needs to be added. In short, for a DLL symbol pulled into a schematic, the DLL search is based on the root path in .libpath.
Well, I have some concerns that make me a bit hesitant to develop my library with DLL blocks, and I would prefer sharing them on a project basis instead.
Since a .dll can basically contain anything, I don’t think people feel safe just downloading someone else’s .dll and executing the code in Qspice. This means the safest approach is to share the .cpp file and let others compile it themselves. However, this requires the .cpp file to be in the user’s working directory. As a result, I am just not sure if sharing a .dll as a library is a good idea, considering how people feel about running DLL blocks.
I think it would be more useful if the DLL block could search for the .cpp file and compile a .dll directly into the working directory. That way, people might feel safer. But this is just my perspective.
2 Likes
You are correct … sadly.
Like you, I don’t want to encourage folk to download/execute binaries. Early on, I distributed only source and required users to compile the DLLs. Recent projects, however, are too complex to develop using the ancient DMC compiler. I still provide all sources (and even MSVS project files) so that they can compile themselves. But this requires the user to have MSVS and know how to use it. So, I am forced to distribute binaries to make it possible for others to easily use the projects. 
1 Like