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=20161025;
        h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
        bh=nnmfUT7CsKBECj5mW+rtzDaxbPNoV71pdfDUBJiuIAQ=;
        b=T05uVAYU7uPcIVh6qmUOdRDq+OKClpCpadmEn7Dq5TXfl+cmhuQYcEws5dxVdYY5PW
         EKon4SJm4DE8DepRfTWJNHhhlptip06iepx8EDbooz4FJDPqNIuIUFq68T8DMvBdgrfb
         IuweosXxSI5P8MBmnp5FirKt7oIgp7mP4omOP3/gQyWcVtoGqX2vTgZz73w/27qPp+gu
         GiFyGg4iF3TZc7Yp/dh5cF4cN8PFC5rEWInLwOoIC/NZgCuqA/2+uxccFFnzJd8xPMbn
         lEqj65CHjFgdG5v4WWs94aySg3eGXGdULwP1GUxzMzN5CzrAhTvlqs3aKglbkxkCzR0+
         VIng==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
        h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
         :message-id:subject:to;
        bh=nnmfUT7CsKBECj5mW+rtzDaxbPNoV71pdfDUBJiuIAQ=;
        b=jfkiB/ek6p17aTffNCiO6mYq8KTYV3IRMxgaa6Iyzg0/jpPUcSMz+gLzvqTjYi9+WN
         bO9fpUXKalL77gOc38Wf1DVurAttlLJkVfIGUrbYLIj7Nzp0X5r/o6zkb0QPN3vd3UVh
         hGEKqf5mXPKktZ//1aMvXLWu3oc18Zk2eH4th/ZWbTK248Hj6Va8RHXYFW13JuJRolKx
         q6+vP8ghP7OR0ecw/R74rxmcZmscc+vYmnafTmHpDuMFdpt+JQ7IWZSH63YV29k0haMT
         4cNQZLAHcyEXq5JVk/Qqq3nJlIgJiat93YOESjFbrhBfpBuPh5iTHjN6q22gZuo+peyb
         G1KQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531Ge/4ulySqW6MaZ7A/k+O6aTumlkF1RGA8M4hxlL25DVdcF3N0
	7VmUmKicNDTUl66azb7wssYaY7/dtr3Tb0boIm9BzEPaAvg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJytTP71LN+uIAzFaDSr4Vg8L9wPCpZykCNgn+kxQf45RFroZB0/tRw9W58EBn9q06iScC32m11R0A+jDF5otCA=
X-Received: by 2002:a67:17c6:: with SMTP id 189mr3050127vsx.36.1601906147252;
 Mon, 05 Oct 2020 06:55:47 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAGBFkM2Bja4mjn-7mt_WUcw5AHa6DLJgrZdCDp5cpauGmy6UuA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
 <CAC4O8c_8vT47Afr6qPo3yn4QTgZ6ot8rYJqhFrTv8zmELM9iOQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC4O8c_8vT47Afr6qPo3yn4QTgZ6ot8rYJqhFrTv8zmELM9iOQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Chad Parker (parker DOT charles AT gmail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" <geda-user AT delorie DOT com>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2020 09:55:36 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJZxidAyVxuLiUwxWz2zhTX6DVsMNr4qGOw+6EDM9c0mV5=_iQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [geda-user] PCB connect pad to plane
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000dedbb405b0ecd610"
Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com

--000000000000dedbb405b0ecd610
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

If you set the clearance of a pad to zero inside a polygon, you should get
a "Pad with insufficient clearance inside polygon" error, not a "copper
areas too close error". If you're getting the latter, that's a bug and we
should fix it. Are you building from source? Have you run the tests? The
DRC now has a pretty comprehensive set of test cases, and I would expect
this to be flagged. A quick test with 4.2.0 on Win10 flags this correctly.

It should, however, throw an error. It is technically breaking a design
rule, even if you're doing it intentionally. The consequences of making
such a connection unintentionally is quite high, and so it's safer, IMO, to
throw the error and have you verify that the connection is intentional.

Yes... we need more flexibility here. I'm aware. Also, SM pad thermals are
high on my priority list, the availability of which I would expect to make
this a non-issue.

--Chad

On Sun, Oct 4, 2020 at 12:55 AM Britton Kerin (britton DOT kerin AT gmail DOT com)
[via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] <geda-user AT delorie DOT com> wrote:

> Unfortunately the DRC will still
> report a violation for the pad, but this warning can be ignored.
> Incidentally, is it really correct to report "copper areas too close"
> when the clearance assigned to the pad in question is 0?  Perhaps this
> should be changed in pcb.
>

--000000000000dedbb405b0ecd610
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>If you set the clearance of a pad to zero inside a po=
lygon, you should get a &quot;Pad with insufficient clearance inside polygo=
n&quot; error, not a &quot;copper areas too close error&quot;. If you&#39;r=
e getting the latter, that&#39;s a bug and we should fix it.=20
Are you building from source? Have you run the tests? The DRC now has a pre=
tty comprehensive set of test cases, and I would expect this to be flagged.=
 A quick test with 4.2.0 on Win10 flags this correctly.=C2=A0

</div><div><br></div><div>It should, however, throw an error. It is technic=
ally breaking a design rule, even if you&#39;re doing it intentionally. The=
 consequences of making such a connection unintentionally is quite high, an=
d so it&#39;s safer, IMO, to throw the error and have you verify that the c=
onnection is intentional.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Yes... we need more =
flexibility here. I&#39;m aware. Also, SM pad thermals are high on my prior=
ity list, the availability of which I would expect to make this a non-issue=
.<br></div><div></div><div><br></div><div>--Chad<br></div><div><br></div><d=
iv class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Sun, Oct =
4, 2020 at 12:55 AM Britton Kerin (<a href=3D"mailto:britton DOT kerin AT gmail DOT co=
m">britton DOT kerin AT gmail DOT com</a>) [via <a href=3D"mailto:geda-user AT delorie DOT co=
m">geda-user AT delorie DOT com</a>] &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:geda-user AT delorie DOT com">=
geda-user AT delorie DOT com</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_qu=
ote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,20=
4);padding-left:1ex">Unfortunately the DRC will still<br>
report a violation for the pad, but this warning can be ignored.<br>
Incidentally, is it really correct to report &quot;copper areas too close&q=
uot;<br>
when the clearance assigned to the pad in question is 0?=C2=A0 Perhaps this=
<br>
should be changed in pcb.<br>
</blockquote></div></div>

--000000000000dedbb405b0ecd610--