On 4/7/2011 1:13 PM, Stephan Boettcher wrote:
rickman<gnuarm.geda@xxxxxxxxx> writes:I have to say I am philosophically opposed to any feature that allows a design to pass DRC when the layout differs from the schematic.Just to get the terminology right: DRC has no business to care about the schematics at all. There shall be a tool to check if the layout implements the schematics netlist, but that is a different issue. PCB implements this distiction properly. DRC checks consider coper structures as layed out when evaluating the rules, without regard to the netlist. The Rat's-nest (O-key) ignores DRC rules when checking connectivity.
Ok, if you want to be pedantic the net list is not the schematic, but if the netlist differs from the schematic, then you have another problem.
DRC is a part of my design process which includes a verification that the layout matches the net list. In fact, my number 1 "design rule" to be checked is that they match. What button I push to get the tool to do my required design rule checking is irrelevant. It is just a tool and does not define my process.
So my point is that adding an attribute to any copper to tell the tool to ignore the connectivity violates my idea of design rule checking.
Rick _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user