I have no idea what "right approach" means since every design and
designer tends to work differently. I've explained the rules, now
there are many ways for you to use them.
If it makes sense to use symbolic connectivity in the schematics,
then use it. But if you have to use NCC directives to "explain" to
the NCC system why two pieces of circuitry aren't the same but should
be, then keep in mind that you may be setting up a situation where
there will be failure down the line if you don't do the things you
promised to do in the NCC directive.
-Steve
At 09:21 AM 6/29/2014, you wrote:
On Sunday, June 29, 2014 6:12:32 PM UTC+2, Steven Rubin wrote:
This makes sense because schematics users always do that: connect
things by giving them the same name.
Exactly the reason why I was trying in layout.
DRC will then think it is connected and use the proper rules. In
general, however, if you want your layout to be connected, you have
to connect it.
So in this case the right approach would be create the corresponding
schematics for the layouts, check those with NCC, and on the
schematics simulation give lines the same name to connect them, right?
--
Andrea
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Electric VLSI Editor" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to
<mailto:[email protected]>[email protected].
For more options, visit
<https://groups.google.com/d/optout>https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Electric
VLSI Editor" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
