Hi JP, Did they report the same number of errors?
Thanks, Jeff. > On 26 Apr 2020, at 15:03, jp charras <jp.char...@wanadoo.fr> wrote: > > Le 26/04/2020 à 14:27, Jeff Young a écrit : >> I have added code to many DRC errors which shows the minimum clearance, its >> source, and the actual clearance. >> >> The old DRC code was pretty heavily optimised around the idea of only >> needing to know if the clearance was violated (and not by how much), so a >> lot of it has been re-written. For this reason the new code is currently in >> a branch (jeffDRC). >> >> I’d appreciate some testing on it if anyone gets a chance. (More on the DRC >> errors themselves than the new reporting.) >> >> Cheers, >> Jeff. >> >> PS: feel free to report issues here in email, or in >> https://gitlab.com/kicad/code/kicad/-/issues/2313. >> > > Hi Jeff, > I just tested it. > > The old DRC code was pretty heavily optimized around the idea of only needing > to know if the clearance was violated because the calculation time > is *much* faster than calculating actual distances. > I tested the calculation time on the same (a 16 layers large board) with both > DRC versions: > To test tracks clearance: > Current algo: 14 s. > Your new algo: 4 m > > This is really a blocking problem. > > -- > Jean-Pierre CHARRAS > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
