At 04:14 PM 5/9/01 -0600, Jim Muehlberg wrote:

>Just to clarify, I do not have a "NO ERC" net!  Upon closer examination,
>though, not all of the no ERC points netlisted.  Just a few did this.
>More erratic behavior if you ask me!

The plot thickens. One possibility is that Mr. Muehlberg expects something 
with a No-ERC directive on it to not netlist.

But we should probably assume that he has placed No-ERC directives to 
suppress unconnected pin warnings. Thus his comments would make sense. So 
the problem here has *nothing* to do with No-ERC directives; that was a red 
herring. Rather, something is causing pins which he thinks should be 
unconnected to be connected.

The suggestion to chop the schematic is generally a good one. It can help 
to narrow down a problem to a few primitives by doing a binary chop (i.e., 
half, determine if either or both or neither half has the behavior, then 
chop again in half accordingly, until only a few primitives are left).

But this may not be necessary. I would look at exactly what pins were 
netlisted, and what name was assigned to the net. I would also show hidden 
pins and see if there are any that might be causing the problem. It is also 
not utterly impossible that someone could assign some wires the background 
color; I think it is easy to anticipate what would occur if this were done. 
I haven't tried it; Protel should lock this out, but I wouldn't blame then 
for not doing it. To detect these, I would select all wires, which should 
make any invisible wires visible.

[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Abdulrahman Lomax
P.O. Box 690
El Verano, CA 95433


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/subscrib.html
*                      - or email -
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=leave%20proteledaforum
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply via email to