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] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
