Mail Archives: geda-user/2013/04/18/13:58:10
Hi Andrew,
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 09:20:31AM -0700, Andrew Poelstra wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 04:08:06PM +0200, Gabriel Paubert wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I have started fixing a few problems in Gerber exporter:
> > - use 0.1mil resolution for drill files (Excellon format)
> > - avoid runaway aperture number allocation
> >
> > Since it involved touching pcb-prinf.[ch], I took the opportunity
> > to improve comments and perform a couple of cleanups.
> >
> > These patches pass the test suite, this does not mean that no
> > bugs are introduced, but, loooking at the output under gerbv,
> > drills were better centered on pins in the example I tried.
> >
> > I have other patches in the pipeline, but they depend on these
> > first 3.
> >
>
> Hi Gabriel,
>
>
> The patches all look good to me. I'll have to look over that
> 'redundant check' you removed, because it's not clear from the
> patch what that check originally did or why it's unnecessary.
To be precise the original redundant check was:
while (printf_spec[i] == '%' || isdigit(printf_spec[i]) ||
printf_spec[i] == '-' || printf_spec[i] == '+' ||
printf_spec[i] == '#' || printf_spec[i] == '0')
but "is_digit(x)" is a superset of "x == '0'", so I eliminated the latter.
> Maybe somebody with more experience with gcode can check over
> the gcode changes. But they seem reasonable to me.
Which gcode? I have not touched the gcode exporter AFAIK.
>
>
> When I get a chance to check on that check, and assuming no NAK's
> come in, I'll push these.
Thanks for taking care of it.
Gabriel
- Raw text -