Mail Archives: geda-user/2015/10/22/17:48:32
--001a113cd1d025ec0b0522b8732b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
2015-10-22 2:01 GMT+02:00 John Doty <jpd AT noqsi DOT com>:
>
> On Oct 21, 2015, at 3:55 PM, Carlos Nieves (cnieves DOT mail AT gmail DOT com) [via
> geda-user AT delorie DOT com] <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
>
> > You know drc2 needs you to fill in some info in order to do the job
> correctly. Do you?
>
> Yes. But it doesn=E2=80=99t understand split symbols, especially slotted =
symbols
> together with unslotted symbols for a single package. It assumes hidden
> pins all have pintype=3Dpwr. It doesn=E2=80=99t understand that backplane=
connectors
> don=E2=80=99t connect every signal on the backplane to every board.
>
Yes, it doesn't. There is (a huge) room for improvement.
For unconnected pins there is the NoConnection directive. I cant remember
for hidden pins...
> > I agree drc2 could be better, but something is better than nothing.
>
> I agree, and I=E2=80=99ve used it successfully for years. Thank you. It i=
s *a lot*
> better than nothing. But if you=E2=80=99re doing mixed-signal design usin=
g a lot of
> split symbols, like Kai-Martin=E2=80=99s slotted+power stuff, and a lot o=
f tabular
> connections through pins2gsch, you are far outside drc2=E2=80=99s model o=
f the
> application space.
>
>
Last modification to drc2 was in 2006... It seems that is no so annoying.
Otherwise someone would have fixed that. ;)
Reading the designer's mind is impossible for any tool. drc2 checks, other
than duplicated refdes/slots, can be mainly used for digital design but
hardly help for mixed signal.
However, I'm pretty sure it can be improved, and those people who may know
how, are those doing mixed/analog designs. Can anyone share any additional
test? :)
> > You are fluent in scheme. Why don't you help to improve it instead of
> complaining about it every time?
>
> I posted a new approach to the duplicate refdes/pin problem today on this
> list. I prefer to write new things rather than change old things that are
> in use. I=E2=80=99m not smart enough to avoid breaking other people=E2=80=
=99s applications:
> one man=E2=80=99s bug is another man=E2=80=99s feature. I=E2=80=99m sure =
drc2=E2=80=99s model of schematic
> design fits some folk=E2=80=99s flows fine. It just doesn=E2=80=99t fit m=
ine terribly well.
> By writing something new I get to serve my interests without harming
> anybody else=E2=80=99s.
>
>
Regarding breaking any other flow, please see below.
I'm ok with that. However, if we know drc2 has problems with that, I'd like
to see it fixed.
Why about including your backend into drc2, or making drc2 call your
backend?
As all tests are configurable, this could be added as an additional test,
and let the users enable/disable tests according their needs.
> >
> > One of your fears is that some change in the code break some backend.
>
> That=E2=80=99s part of it. But I also fear that making the core code more=
rigid
> and use case oriented may paralyze future development. To be use case
> oriented is OK for something optional like drc2, but it=E2=80=99s not OK =
for the
> core code.
>
> > You know there are regression tests trying to avoid this.
>
> Yes, I know. It's good to have tests. However, they can=E2=80=99t check u=
sers=E2=80=99
> private scripts. I=E2=80=99m not the only one who has them. They can=E2=
=80=99t check every
> diagram and crazy symbol in use. People do all kinds of things with
> geda-gaf, even plumbing networks! Nobody fully understands the breadth of
> geda-gaf=E2=80=99s application space. We should therefore be very, very c=
autious
> about changing core code. Why not put the effort into new tools and scrip=
ts?
>
That's a pretty well know concern. There is no need to worry about other
unpublished backends.
You already dig into this in another mail. What we need is a good test
suite for the gnetlist API, in order to be sure any change to the core
doesn't change gnetlist's behaviour.
If the API is not changed, there is no chance to break other backends.
You have enligthened us with some backends nobody could even think about.
I'm pretty sure you know pretty well how to use the API. Why not start
writing an API test backend/suite?
Regards,
Carlos
--001a113cd1d025ec0b0522b8732b
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te">2015-10-22 2:01 GMT+02:00 John Doty <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"ma=
ilto:jpd AT noqsi DOT com" target=3D"_blank">jpd AT noqsi DOT com</a>></span>:<br><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left=
:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D""><br>
On Oct 21, 2015, at 3:55 PM, Carlos Nieves (<a href=3D"mailto:cnieves.mail@=
gmail.com">cnieves DOT mail AT gmail DOT com</a>) [via <a href=3D"mailto:geda-user AT del=
orie.com">geda-user AT delorie DOT com</a>] <<a href=3D"mailto:geda-user AT delori=
e.com">geda-user AT delorie DOT com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> You know drc2 needs you to fill in some info in order to do the job co=
rrectly. Do you?<br>
<br>
</span>Yes. But it doesn=E2=80=99t understand split symbols, especially slo=
tted symbols together with unslotted symbols for a single package. It assum=
es hidden pins all have pintype=3Dpwr. It doesn=E2=80=99t understand that b=
ackplane connectors don=E2=80=99t connect every signal on the backplane to =
every board.<span class=3D""><br></span></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Ye=
s, it doesn't. There is (a huge) room for improvement. <br></div><div>F=
or unconnected pins there is the NoConnection directive. I cant remember fo=
r hidden pins...<br><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"ma=
rgin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:=
1ex"><span class=3D""><br>
> I agree drc2 could be better, but something is better than nothing.<br=
>
<br>
</span>I agree, and I=E2=80=99ve used it successfully for years. Thank you.=
It is *a lot* better than nothing. But if you=E2=80=99re doing mixed-signa=
l design using a lot of split symbols, like Kai-Martin=E2=80=99s slotted+po=
wer stuff, and a lot of tabular connections through pins2gsch, you are far =
outside drc2=E2=80=99s model of the application space.<br>
<span class=3D""><br></span></blockquote><div><br>Last modification to drc2=
was in 2006... It seems that is no so annoying. Otherwise someone would ha=
ve fixed that. ;)<br><br>Reading the designer's mind is impossible for =
any tool. drc2 checks, other than duplicated refdes/slots, can be mainly us=
ed for digital design but hardly help for mixed signal.<br><br></div><div>H=
owever, I'm pretty sure it can be improved, and those people who may kn=
ow how, are those doing mixed/analog designs. Can anyone share any addition=
al test? :)<br>=C2=A0<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"m=
argin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left=
:1ex"><span class=3D"">
> You are fluent in scheme. Why don't you help to improve it instead=
of complaining about it every time?<br>
<br>
</span>I posted a new approach to the duplicate refdes/pin problem today on=
this list. I prefer to write new things rather than change old things that=
are in use. I=E2=80=99m not smart enough to avoid breaking other people=E2=
=80=99s applications: one man=E2=80=99s bug is another man=E2=80=99s featur=
e. I=E2=80=99m sure drc2=E2=80=99s model of schematic design fits some folk=
=E2=80=99s flows fine. It just doesn=E2=80=99t fit mine terribly well. By w=
riting something new I get to serve my interests without harming anybody el=
se=E2=80=99s.<br>
<span class=3D""><br></span></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div>Regarding=
breaking any other flow, please see below.<br></div><div><br></div>I'm=
ok with that. However, if we know drc2 has problems with that, I'd lik=
e to see it fixed.<br></div>Why about including your backend into drc2, or =
making drc2 call your backend?<br></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote">As all t=
ests are configurable, this could be added as an additional test, and let t=
he users enable/disable tests according their needs.<div>=C2=A0</div><block=
quote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1=
px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D"">
><br>
> One of your fears is that some change in the code break some backend.<=
br>
<br>
</span>That=E2=80=99s part of it. But I also fear that making the core code=
more rigid and use case oriented may paralyze future development. To be us=
e case oriented is OK for something optional like drc2, but it=E2=80=99s no=
t OK for the core code.<br>
<span class=3D""><br>
>=C2=A0 You know there are regression tests trying to avoid this.<br>
<br>
</span>Yes, I know. It's good to have tests. However, they can=E2=80=99=
t check users=E2=80=99 private scripts. I=E2=80=99m not the only one who ha=
s them. They can=E2=80=99t check every diagram and crazy symbol in use. Peo=
ple do all kinds of things with geda-gaf, even plumbing networks! Nobody fu=
lly understands the breadth of geda-gaf=E2=80=99s application space. We sho=
uld therefore be very, very cautious about changing core code. Why not put =
the effort into new tools and scripts?<span class=3D""><br></span></blockqu=
ote><div><br>That's a pretty well know concern. There is no need to wor=
ry about other unpublished backends.<br>You
already dig into this in another mail. What we need is a good test=20
suite for the gnetlist API, in order to be sure any change to the core=20
doesn't change gnetlist's behaviour. <br><div>If the API is not cha=
nged, there is no chance to break other backends.<br><br>You
have enligthened us with some backends nobody could even think about.
I'm pretty sure you know pretty well how to use the API. Why not start=
writing an API test backend/suite?<br></div><div><br></div><div>Regards,<b=
r><br></div><div>Carlos<br></div>=C2=A0<br></div></div><br></div></div>
--001a113cd1d025ec0b0522b8732b--
- Raw text -