X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Envelope-From: paubert AT iram DOT es
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 21:12:01 +0100
From: Gabriel Paubert <paubert AT iram DOT es>
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: [geda-user] Suppress NC nodes from netlist?
Message-ID: <20140110201201.GA27179@visitor2.iram.es>
References: <alpine DOT LRH DOT 2 DOT 01 DOT 1401091631360 DOT 13782 AT homer02 DOT u DOT washington DOT edu>
 <20140110094326 DOT GA12963 AT visitor2 DOT iram DOT es>
 <alpine DOT LRH DOT 2 DOT 01 DOT 1401100819370 DOT 19632 AT homer02 DOT u DOT washington DOT edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.01.1401100819370.19632@homer02.u.washington.edu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
X-Spamina-Bogosity: Unsure
X-Spamina-Spam-Score: -0.2 (/)
X-Spamina-Spam-Report: Content analysis details:   (-0.2 points)
  pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
 -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED            Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP
  0.8 BAYES_50               BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60%
                             [score: 0.5001]
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
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 08:24:49AM -0800, Frank Miles wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jan 2014, Gabriel Paubert wrote:
> 
> >On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 04:38:35PM -0800, Frank Miles wrote:
> >>(gschem-gnetlist newbie here...)
> >>
> >>I'd like to suppress 'not connected' nodes from the gnetlist output.  These have
> >>NC symbols attached in gschem.  Is there some simple way that I'm oblivious to?
> >>Or is this possible in a newer gnetlist and not mine?  Thanks!
> >
> >I think it's a kind of "harmless bug" that does not bother most
> >netlist writers.
> 
> [snip helpful scheme code]
> 
> Thanks, Gabriel!  I will have to experiment with this.  I'm sure it is
> "mostly harmless", but it's causing me some minor grief with a downstream tool
> that I'm using.  Vladimir's suggestion that I simply not use the NC- symbols
> causes drc2 to emit an error for unconnected pins, which is also not good.
> 
> I'll have to see how to submit a bug report.

I'm not even sure that this will be considered as a bug. Modifying an existing
netlister to avoid producing single node nets is not difficult.

I've never used drc2 myself, so I can't comment on its usefulness. AFAICT it 
would never have found the few bugs I had in my last large design, despite
the fact that I had indeed forgotten some power connections (actually I think
that the power type should be split in two: there are power providers and
power consumers,  no two providers can be connected together and a consumer 
has to be connected to a provider, but the drc logic does not allow this). 
My small designs are mostly RF where basically all nodes are "passive", which
can essentially connect to anything.

	Gabriel