ftp.delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
X-Authentication-Warning: | delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f |
Date: | Sun, 6 Jul 2014 13:08:06 -0400 |
Message-Id: | <201407061708.s66H86a8022645@envy.delorie.com> |
From: | DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com> |
To: | geda-user AT delorie DOT com |
In-reply-to: | <53B965BE.6040303@sonic.net> (message from Dave Curtis on Sun, 06 |
Jul 2014 08:05:34 -0700) | |
Subject: | Re: [geda-user] pour clearing around pads |
References: | <53B8CC66 DOT 2080909 AT sonic DOT net> <201407060516 DOT s665GVb3027395 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <53B965BE DOT 6040303 AT sonic DOT net> |
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 |
> Is there a reliable way to validate that zero-width pads are usable? Code review. > 1. Draw a Pad[] with zero width, but with clearance/mask set create > desired relief. > 2. Give the Pad[] a pin number that is *not* used in the part, that way > it will not show up in the netlist and cause rat/routing/connectivity > confusion. I suspect that a zero-width pad is still "a pad" according to parts of the code, so it will still block traces and cause shorts despite being zero-width.
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |