On Sat, 2010-08-14 at 18:57 -0400, Paul Tan wrote: > Hi Andrew Poelstra, > > On Aug 14, 2010; 10:34am, Andrew Poelstra wrote: > > >Otherwise, certain nets (such as power or ground nets), which often > >have vastly different characteristics in different sections, would > >be difficult to describe. > > If the "split nets" means BUS, such as "addrBus[63:0]" which > can be split into "addrBus[12:0]", "addrBus[15]", etc; or even > the notion of Compound BUS such as "addrBus[63:0],ALE,CTRL", > it can all be done with the backend scheme code. It really > depends on the particular backend netlister implementation. >
I think he cares about touching net segments, same as I, see for example http://ssalewski.de/gEDA-Netclass.html.en the Power and Bypass segment. I think John Doty got it: >Not so much. We already draw nets as segments, and attributes are >actually attached to segments, not nets. Might need to modify the >segment merging rules, but that's about it. And one could argue that >the automatic segment merging is already a case of the tool >inappropriately trying to outsmart the user. >John Doty _______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list [email protected] http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
