Thanks for all of your help.

I found the problem. One hardware component was causing the trouble. I
deleted it and now the program works normal.

Shuping



-----Original Message-----
From: Abd ulRahman Lomax [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 12:25 PM
To: Protel EDA Forum
Subject: Re: [PEDA] FW: Access violation -- Is it a Protel bug?


At 10:13 AM 4/17/2002 -0700, Shuping Lew wrote:
>---I created netlist for each sheets. There are total 25 sheets. I then
>loaded them individaully. There were no problem.

If the problem was, for example, that you had an incorrect scope such that
some net names were duplicated between sheets even though you did not
intend to connect them, or there were duplicate designators, with one on
one sheet and another on another sheet, each sheet would still load
correctly, but the combination would fail in some way.

A common error is the use of flat hierarchy with named nets on each sheet,
but the sheet numbers are not added to the net names. This will cause
duplicate net names, quite a mess.

What Mr. Velander wrote should also be noticed.

I'd be interested to see that net list. Mr. Lew, if he is concerned about
proprietary data, could make a copy of his .ddb, edit the schematic to
remove all type data, generate a net list -- which should still crash
Protel, that should be verified -- and send it to me or to anyone else
interested. Don't send it to the list!

(A net list without data regarding the types of parts contains zero IP. I
would not reveal the data to anyone else anyway, even if it did contain
type data.)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html
*
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply via email to