At 01:41 PM 5/31/2002 +0200, Shahab Sanjari wrote:

>Sorry I was not at work due to an operation on my nose!

we won't ask any nosy questions.

>But thank you all. As I stated, the problem occurs regardless
>of type or footprint.
>I will call this "Remaining Netlisting Macros". Which means, after
>"execute" you see a very few macros still there in the "preview changes"
>box. Only when you change these macros in the Netlist manager manually,
>do they not aprear anymore.
>Intresting is that these macros asre not unique, several of the same
>type are done already.
>I had the same problem with another Protel SP(5), another project on
>another PC 7. The only common thing in between is me! due to which I
>think I have to revise my style since no other seems to have faced the
>problem before.

Actually, I may have seen behavior like this. Oscillating macros, for 
example, will occur if Netlist Load is being used and there are duplicated 
pad numbers in a footprint on the PCB. I think something like this also 
happens if there are duplicated reference designators.

Duplicated reference designators on the schematic, if not eliminated (pay 
attention to the ERC!), can produce two instances of a pin in a net or 
perhaps two different nets with the same apparent pin. Again, a symptom 
will be persistent macros.

And I have seen some persistent macros where I was not able to identify the 
cause, at least not quickly. It seems to me that once upon a time I did 
figure out what caused this, but the knowledge, if my impression is even 
correct, has gone the way of all ephemera.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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