ftp.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-Envelope-From: | paubert AT iram DOT es |
Date: | Fri, 10 Jan 2014 21:12:01 +0100 |
From: | Gabriel Paubert <paubert AT iram DOT es> |
To: | geda-user AT delorie DOT com |
Subject: | Re: [geda-user] Suppress NC nodes from netlist? |
Message-ID: | <20140110201201.GA27179@visitor2.iram.es> |
References: | <alpine DOT LRH DOT 2 DOT 01 DOT 1401091631360 DOT 13782 AT homer02 DOT u DOT washington DOT edu> |
<20140110094326 DOT GA12963 AT visitor2 DOT iram DOT es> | |
<alpine DOT LRH DOT 2 DOT 01 DOT 1401100819370 DOT 19632 AT homer02 DOT u DOT washington DOT edu> | |
MIME-Version: | 1.0 |
In-Reply-To: | <alpine.LRH.2.01.1401100819370.19632@homer02.u.washington.edu> |
User-Agent: | Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) |
X-Spamina-Bogosity: | Unsure |
X-Spamina-Spam-Score: | -0.2 (/) |
X-Spamina-Spam-Report: | Content analysis details: (-0.2 points) |
pts rule name description | |
---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- | |
-1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP | |
0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% | |
[score: 0.5001] | |
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 Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 08:24:49AM -0800, Frank Miles wrote: > On Fri, 10 Jan 2014, Gabriel Paubert wrote: > > >On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 04:38:35PM -0800, Frank Miles wrote: > >>(gschem-gnetlist newbie here...) > >> > >>I'd like to suppress 'not connected' nodes from the gnetlist output. These have > >>NC symbols attached in gschem. Is there some simple way that I'm oblivious to? > >>Or is this possible in a newer gnetlist and not mine? Thanks! > > > >I think it's a kind of "harmless bug" that does not bother most > >netlist writers. > > [snip helpful scheme code] > > Thanks, Gabriel! I will have to experiment with this. I'm sure it is > "mostly harmless", but it's causing me some minor grief with a downstream tool > that I'm using. Vladimir's suggestion that I simply not use the NC- symbols > causes drc2 to emit an error for unconnected pins, which is also not good. > > I'll have to see how to submit a bug report. I'm not even sure that this will be considered as a bug. Modifying an existing netlister to avoid producing single node nets is not difficult. I've never used drc2 myself, so I can't comment on its usefulness. AFAICT it would never have found the few bugs I had in my last large design, despite the fact that I had indeed forgotten some power connections (actually I think that the power type should be split in two: there are power providers and power consumers, no two providers can be connected together and a consumer has to be connected to a provider, but the drc logic does not allow this). My small designs are mostly RF where basically all nodes are "passive", which can essentially connect to anything. Gabriel
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |