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=vC+p3wrZJsvi5YtXzW+4+F6cRRdcFy3HEa+i4WfHLko=;
	b=ketBGNJa1o8iDmlsKXwRtZf4RRLnxLDnFAKRyz/PVdwRdtI/PRg1qV4S5X8n5POAzL
	2wYAvVSC/psr2iw6HdtUgduNk30QTrnvIdiINsOieeKidJ1qPtJeBW3rtgrYI10rT/19
	poCYgcv9+r1ecZpOdCuFOrjqevsxz7uNk1p/wgpxfMYfoUtV162ss1fRyB0r3TDepwmK
	hkdgUutbg7jrtaSO1eF1X862+oIGLjmmf/VUpCV5jOVA9lwwHFkcODnbsiAmq6IuJYhR
	ubgazMTW/krvxGiCvnl7FnIsdi5T/H27g1ZDa6KrX3GKxFVb8IBKIutspYJE06FSrEK7
	5Bpg==
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Received:	by 10.112.222.133 with SMTP id qm5mr6732890lbc.86.1433978648984;
	Wed, 10 Jun 2015 16:24:08 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To:	<CAM2RGhS3GjWzpnyRNG149z1bs=YofNhO6y2Av2fNBvwVMPt==Q@mail.gmail.com>
References:	<CAM2RGhRevQRT_unv2jZs0GYPUtQLy1-BpxhgMfXFY4NseSfFbw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<CAOP4iL1ZpiydVs200YEOnhxxdvnwRyWDtnjeXZHK3+BFH+ZSiQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<CAM2RGhS3GjWzpnyRNG149z1bs=YofNhO6y2Av2fNBvwVMPt==Q AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
Date:	Wed, 10 Jun 2015 23:24:08 +0000
Message-ID:	<CAM2RGhSNEt_oqNCKu--pe3KncwnxVvqGbmTE23GBAOnXcwMbfA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject:	Re: [geda-user] Interchange formats
From:	"Evan Foss (evanfoss AT gmail 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

John,

I have spent a fair amount of time working to implement JTAG stuff.
Trust me the vendors have all made their own stuff in places. BSDL
files let them explain things other than just their own unique cell
types. They can make up their own attributes containing basically
anything they want. While we are at it there are hardwired breakpoints
and things that are often run parallel to JTAG. That stuff is also a
wild west.

Why does it mostly work universally?
1. Vendors realized that the market was really demanding baseline
functionality work with out headaches.
2. JTAG tool vendors put a lot of work into making the above statement happen.




On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 11:08 PM, Evan Foss <evanfoss AT gmail DOT com> wrote:
> Britton,
>
> STEP is to mechanical CAD
> as
> Gerber is to electrical CAD
>
> Nice but minus a lot of the meta data that the CAD software originally
> carried. Could you write something that automatically converts a
> Gerber back to separate traces and footprints? The mechanical people
> have the same problem only worse because of how rounding errors can
> subtly change the dimensions of stuff.
>
> Because of the issues around this brlcad are now migrating to a method
> where they natively support more formats.
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 10:57 PM, Ouabache Designworks
> (z3qmtr45 AT gmail DOT com) <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 1:26 PM, Evan Foss (evanfoss AT gmail DOT com)
>> <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
>>>
>>> For those of us who are not as well versed in our history of this
>>> subject. I would like to know why so many common EDA formats have
>>> failed?
>>
>>
>> Well EDIF and IP_XACT both failed because while they have seen wide adoption
>> the standards were loose enough that every vendor adopted their own slighty
>> different "Flavors" of the standard. Unless you went to the effort to read
>> in all known flavors then you couldn't read in other vendors files. This was
>> compounded by the fact that
>> our industry keeps growing and the tools get new features that need new data
>> base objects.
>>
>> A better approach might be to look at the standards that have succeeded and
>> figure out why. Jtag has been around for 20 years and is still quite
>> healthy. They did not begin by releasing one huge standard, They started
>> with 1149.1 that simply covered the bare bones minimun that everyone had to
>> follow. As new features were needed they would add them in a new dot level.
>> They are currently up to 1149.7.
>>
>> John Eaton
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Home
> http://evanfoss.googlepages.com/
> Work
> http://forge.abcd.harvard.edu/gf/project/epl_engineering/wiki/



-- 
Home
http://evanfoss.googlepages.com/
Work
http://forge.abcd.harvard.edu/gf/project/epl_engineering/wiki/

- Raw text -