Multiples of Undefined

I was snooping around for pricing on a part and the Arrow site has them listed, but not as stock. I clicked for a quote and when I typed my info into the box it said, "Request for LFXP3C-3TN100C

Please correct the following errors: Quantity must be in multiples of undefined"

It won't let me send it. What are the multiples of "undefined"? lol

Rick C.

Reply to
gnuarm.deletethisbit
Loading thread data ...

That's easy.

A pair o' ducks.

Reply to
Dave Platt

"0xC0 0x80" In Modified UFT-8.... squared. :)

Reply to
mpm

It's times like these, I reach for the F12 key.

The last time I did such a client-side modification, was an online quality system where it wanted a graphic for a signature. You could choose from a couple built-in script fonts (ugh, useless), or draw your own on a HTML canvas. You know, with a mouse (triple ugh!).

So after some poking around, I was able to import a scan of my actual signature (it's fairly difficult to access files in JS, and rightfully so; best way turned out to be, paste in the base-64 encode), format it as an image and add it to the canvas, and save that as my signature.

I don't know if your problem was a client-side validation, but if it was, you can snoop through the script and see what's happening. Best case, "undefined" is literally just that, a variable with no value assigned. Find the variable, assign it a handy number like 1, and try again. Worst case, the response is a postback from the server (server side validation) and you have to call up sales instead.

Tim

--
Seven Transistor Labs, LLC 
Electrical Engineering Consultation and Contract Design 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Tim Williams

AAAARGHHHH That's the cursed lattice XP!!! don't buy it!!!

Reply to
Johann Klammer

They have a Contact & Support link, just maybe that will help you.

Reply to
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred

What's wrong with the Lattice XP???? I've made millions of dollars selling boards with these parts.

Rick C.

Reply to
gnuarm.deletethisbit

Lemme guess.. were they prototyping boards? you didn't have to use their software or synopsys synthesis engine. That's for sure.

*twitch* *spasm*
Reply to
Johann Klammer

ling boards with these parts.

s for sure.

No, production units. I designed the board and the FPGA myself. I never h ave had any issues with the Lattice software, none that ring a bell anyway. There is the usual stuff where using the GUI is a lot like handling radio active materials using robotic arms, but otherwise it worked well. I do re call once when I was trying to infer an adder with a carry chain so the car ry out (borrow actually) could be used as a zero detect. I kept getting tw o adders with two carry chains. Turns out I was inferring ever so slightly different chains in the two locations. Once I fixed that I got one adder with one carry chain as I wanted.

Don't a lot of vendors use Synopsys? I seem to recall it being the defacto standard for FPGA synthesis, at least until Xilinx got their own tools wor king half way. I thought the Xilinx tools were the ones to avoid because t hey have barely joined the rest of us in the 21st century. Also, just beca use Xilinx tools have always sucked since day one.

Rick C.

Reply to
gnuarm.deletethisbit

elling boards with these parts.

t's for sure.

have had any issues with the Lattice software, none that ring a bell anywa y. There is the usual stuff where using the GUI is a lot like handling rad ioactive materials using robotic arms, but otherwise it worked well. I do recall once when I was trying to infer an adder with a carry chain so the c arry out (borrow actually) could be used as a zero detect. I kept getting two adders with two carry chains. Turns out I was inferring ever so slight ly different chains in the two locations. Once I fixed that I got one adde r with one carry chain as I wanted.

to standard for FPGA synthesis, at least until Xilinx got their own tools w orking half way. I thought the Xilinx tools were the ones to avoid because they have barely joined the rest of us in the 21st century. Also, just be cause Xilinx tools have always sucked since day one.

you keep saying Xilinx sucks, but you also that you haven't used them for 1

5 years so how would you know?
Reply to
Lasse Langwadt Christensen

On Thursday, May 3, 2018 at 1:17:02 PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wr ote:

selling boards with these parts.

hat's for sure.

er have had any issues with the Lattice software, none that ring a bell any way. There is the usual stuff where using the GUI is a lot like handling r adioactive materials using robotic arms, but otherwise it worked well. I d o recall once when I was trying to infer an adder with a carry chain so the carry out (borrow actually) could be used as a zero detect. I kept gettin g two adders with two carry chains. Turns out I was inferring ever so slig htly different chains in the two locations. Once I fixed that I got one ad der with one carry chain as I wanted.

acto standard for FPGA synthesis, at least until Xilinx got their own tools working half way. I thought the Xilinx tools were the ones to avoid becau se they have barely joined the rest of us in the 21st century. Also, just because Xilinx tools have always sucked since day one.

15 years so how would you know?

I don't have to jump off a cliff to know it's a bad idea. I don't need to walk in front of a train to know that's a bad idea. Xilinx has had a reput ation for bad tools since day one when I did use them and got burned. I ha ve used them since, but not in a long time as you say. I read in forums li ke this one about various problems people have with them. I understand the Xilinx brand compiler does not implement much of the VHDL-2008 standard ad ditions even today. People repeated are warned about using many of the new features because of lack of support in Xilinx tools. Every tool has bugs and issues, but to not support the useful additions of VHDL-2008 after 10 y ears is a bit extreme.

Do you know otherwise or are you just in a mood to BS?

Rick C.

Reply to
gnuarm.deletethisbit

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.