www.delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
X-Authentication-Warning: | delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f |
X-Recipient: | geda-user AT delorie DOT com |
X-Original-DKIM-Signature: | v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; |
d=gmail.com; s=20120113; | |
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to | |
:content-type; | |
bh=4PrLy+gbZRjfe8lFI4hGKBaZiPAtg3fm0W+35/bW+BI=; | |
b=kB5vb5tR5x8EKa7olfQ0IGiWkukSZ6pZ5IBbeyouawq82XI8ahQ4S49J6IUks+Zz9D | |
5bIi2Ycn+47d8BCmZBo9hwsGxJPwnpZ7TjbtFVYV+os09kLRTNtWE8l+wxU1Mcv5IPKo | |
AX5vWvRe0BO3LHrpVDJuY4bZ2xPZ40oKmRl8lvwUbhWAQTUK+GhyJfoZDnYIAGlst/ZM | |
ZhTn/cqUQEIrP9UluW1ndk8uvYC3Aa1XbDh8xtU/aklX3Xc7JpuK0hylxVUvdvdMh24W | |
T06kvrXPGo9Dgep5Tj3XLb2CP2dDMDT5r60AYCggeNMRJvJsGnLeIIv5d3TYqEHy97Lq | |
NUew== | |
MIME-Version: | 1.0 |
X-Received: | by 10.180.214.70 with SMTP id ny6mr8077703wic.20.1441904753621; |
Thu, 10 Sep 2015 10:05:53 -0700 (PDT) | |
In-Reply-To: | <20150910131034.32423.qmail@stuge.se> |
References: | <55F1640D DOT 5080703 AT envinsci DOT co DOT uk> |
<55F17B4F DOT 30207 AT jump-ing DOT de> | |
<20150910131034 DOT 32423 DOT qmail AT stuge DOT se> | |
Date: | Thu, 10 Sep 2015 09:05:53 -0800 |
Message-ID: | <CAC4O8c_QpHmCw_uUoQ_yEfM_PG1-2Hsj=qx6MOoXeNjHO9o25g@mail.gmail.com> |
Subject: | Re: [geda-user] zero soldermask clearance not caught by DRC |
From: | "Britton Kerin (britton DOT kerin AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> |
To: | geda-user AT delorie DOT com |
Reply-To: | geda-user AT delorie DOT com |
Errors-To: | nobody AT delorie DOT com |
X-Mailing-List: | geda-user AT delorie DOT com |
X-Unsubscribes-To: | listserv AT delorie DOT com |
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 5:10 AM, Peter Stuge (peter AT stuge DOT se) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote: > Markus Hitter (mah AT jump-ing DOT de) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote: >> > Are shorted nets detectable by some other means? >> >> Shorts are detected when optimizing rats. > > That's, case in point, not very intuitive. > > >> DRC does just DRC, not connection checking. > > It could and should check connections too. > > I often find myself running DRC and optimizing rats (only to check > connections!) together, it makes perfect sense to make connection > checking part of DRC, either in addition to, or maybe instead of, > rat optimization. I vote for both places. One expects DRC to catch it, so it should be there. Rat optimization catches it now, so its a free good feature: it puts detection of the bug closest to point where it's created which generally makes bug cheaper to fix. Britton
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |