Yes, it would flag that too. It would be considered a warning of a net
without a drive source. However, it flags lots of those in a design, so you
might ignore it. (another reason not to ignore warnings.)

Tony

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dennis Saputelli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 6:43 PM
> To: Protel EDA Forum
> Subject: Re: [PEDA] Protel 99SE ERC
> 
> ok, point taken, thanks for the encouragement, keep 'em coming
> 
> how about this one:
> 
> i once had a power port symbol "+12V2" connected to one end 
> of a resistor
> 
> the rest of the board was all "+12V" for that power and i 
> didn't notice it good 'ol cut and paste - it wasn't my fault! :)
> 
> anyway the resistor didn't go anywhere on one end and in the 
> usual mad proto rush it was shipped because the DRC was happy
> 
> does DXP catch this ?
> 
> BTW, this is not a 'single pin net' since the netlist shows 2
> items:
> +12V2
> R112-2
> 
> the 'isolated' power port counts kind of like a 'pin'
> 
> i poked around a bit in 99SE and couldn't find a way to flag it
> 
> yes manually inspecting the netlist would have caught it and 
> truthfully isn't very hard to scan through even a big net 
> list for this sort of thing
> 
> and for the record ...
> at one time i may have been in the DXP-basher camp (some time ago)
> 
> at this point since i have not used DXP much i don't think it 
> would be objective or fair for me to bash i hope i have not 
> lately presented such an attitude
> 
> i would prefer to be categorized as simply a non-DXP user who 
> is very reluctant to 'move on' based on what i saw during a 
> few brief forays 
> 
> when 2004 ships i intend to give it another go
> 
> Dennis Saputelli
> 
> 
> Tony Karavidas wrote:
> > 
> > There are so many reasons voiced as to why to not move to DXP.
> > Here is one reason TO MOVE to DXP. It now checks for that error.
> > 
> > Tony
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Website Visitor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 6:29 AM
> > > To: proteledaforum
> > > Subject: [PEDA] Protel 99SE ERC
> > >
> > > This is a little hard to explain, but here goes...
> > >
> > > I am running the ERC on a schematic in Protel 99SE.  It's 
> > > interesting that there isn't a rule for determining 
> whether a port 
> > > has a mating counterpart.  The Orcad ERC has a place 
> where it will 
> > > verify that all off-page connectors have mating 
> counterparts.  The 
> > > only thing Protel 99 verifies is that the port is connected to 
> > > something electrical.  If you had a port that was 
> supposed to match 
> > > a port on another page, but you mispelled one of them, 
> had a space 
> > > in one of them, etc. you wouldn't know it by using the ERC.  That 
> > > seems really strange to me!
> > > Posted from Association web site by: Travis
> > >
> 
> --
> ______________________________________________________________
> _________
> Integrated Controls, Inc.           Tel: 415-647-0480  EXT 107 
> 2851 21st Street                    Fax: 415-647-3003
> San Francisco, CA 94110             www.integratedcontrolsinc.com
> 
> 
> 



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply via email to