> Most probably, yes, when somebody supplies the toolchain;
> do you think one also could argue when nobody does?
It wouldn't be a major component of the operating system then.
For gcc, though, the FSF themselves supply many embedded toolchains...
__
On 10/7/10, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
>> Cross-compiler is not a component of the operating system
>> on which the executable runs.
>
> Nearly every embedded OS comes *with* a cross compiler. It just
> doesn't happen to run *on* the embedded OS.
>
> One could argue that such a cross compiler is a compo
Go for it! I think your idea is really neat. I'm a hard core Ruby
programmer and have had similar experiences - you can say a lot in a
little bit of space, the code is very readable, and coding goes
quickly. I can think of some other useful applications for a Ruby
version of gschem. A smal
If the tracks select as a single piece, it is just a rendering artefact
due to the line not being _exactly_ 45 degrees. The gerber plot might be
better when viewed in "High quality" mode in gerbv.
PCB, and the lower quality gerbv modes don't render anti-aliased lines,
so this is likely the sour
On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 07:09 -0400, gene glick wrote:
> I hope the attachment comes through. If not, I'll post it somewhere.
>
> I cannot get rid of the jagged diagonal lines on my design. There's
> lots of them. The picture shows a couple of examples. I've tried
> different grid sizes, line
On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 14:41 -0700, Cory Cross wrote:
>
> Laptop & Desktop both run Debian unstable with Linux 2.6.32 for 686,
> Xorg 1.7.7
> Laptop uses intel driver for 945GM/GMS/GME, 943/940GML Express
> Desktop uses open-source radeon driver for Radeon 9250
Are you using compositing? (e.g. co
Do you have Xinerama enabled?
___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
On Thu, Oct 07, 2010 at 05:37:48PM -0600, John Doty wrote:
>
> On Oct 7, 2010, at 5:00 PM, kai-martin knaak wrote:
>
> > (Are there any plans to make inside pcb metric?)
>
> A couple of years ago I suggested making the fundamental units
> nanometers, since that would make decimal fractions of i
On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 17:37 -0600, John Doty wrote:
> On Oct 7, 2010, at 5:00 PM, kai-martin knaak wrote:
>
> > (Are there any plans to make inside pcb metric?)
>
> A couple of years ago I suggested making the fundamental units nanometers,
> since that would make decimal fractions of inches exa
On Oct 7, 2010, at 5:00 PM, kai-martin knaak wrote:
> (Are there any plans to make inside pcb metric?)
A couple of years ago I suggested making the fundamental units nanometers,
since that would make decimal fractions of inches exactly representable as
integers down to 0.01 mil. 0.01 mil = 25
On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 16:23 -0700, Andrew Poelstra wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 01:00:50AM +0200, kai-martin knaak wrote:
> >
> > I prefer 1 mm, sometimes 0.5 mm :-)
> > (Are there any plans to make inside pcb metric?)
> >
>
> I would vote for this.
>
> (But no, not that I've heard.)
>
>
Rather than picking an arbitrary grid I have found a happy mix of
most of the small pitch metric parts (0.65 mm pitch MSOP, SSOP,
TSSOP) and a 0.1625 mm grid. I typically use 6/6 space/trace design
rules which most houses work with ok which is the same as my grid
(give or take the metric/inch
On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 01:00:50AM +0200, kai-martin knaak wrote:
>
> I prefer 1 mm, sometimes 0.5 mm :-)
> (Are there any plans to make inside pcb metric?)
>
I would vote for this.
(But no, not that I've heard.)
Andrew
___
geda-user mailing lis
Steven Michalske wrote:
> Another thought, I usuially place my parts on a 100 mil grid,
> maybe on a 50 mil grid.
I prefer 1 mm, sometimes 0.5 mm :-)
(Are there any plans to make inside pcb metric?)
---<)kaimartin(>---
--
Kai-Martin Knaak
Öffentlicher PGP-Schlüssel:
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/p
Dave N6NZ wrote:
> I've had perfectly explainable jaggies that occur when I am
> routing parallel traces. The 2nd through Nth traces of a
> parallel group can be pushed up against the previous traces
> as close as min-space, and therefore end up off-grid. This
> is great for routing density, but
Hi all,
I don't know where to even start trying to figure out this problem. If
you can give me a clue, I would very much appreciate it.
I have identical builds of a recent git version pcb on my laptop and
desktop and a few other machines. PCB runs just fine on everything but
my desktop. On t
On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 18:20 +, carzr...@optonline.net wrote:
> > Why do you need such a fine grid?
>
>Because it lets me route the 8/8 traces without excessive spaces.
If you really need 1 mil grid, then there is something wrong -- with PCB
or your layout process.
>
>When I get home
> Why do you need such a fine grid?
Because it lets me route the 8/8 traces without excessive spaces. BTW,
I manually make the spacing 9, but the rules are set at 8.
> I think I ask you some months ago, and suggested to use larger
> grid and
> employ snap to pins/pads.
Yes,
Some weeks ago I started working on a very basic schematics editor,
compatible with current gschem file format. I am writing it in Ruby,
using GTK/Cairo.
You may ask: Do we really need one?
No, gschem works fine.
You may say: That is wasting of your time.
Maybe...
You may say: You should bette
On Oct 7, 2010, at 7:50 AM, Stefan Salewski wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 22:29 +0800, Steven Michalske wrote:
I cannot get rid of the jagged diagonal lines on my design. There's lots
of them. The picture shows a couple of examples. I've tried different
grid sizes, line width
On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 22:29 +0800, Steven Michalske wrote:
> >> I cannot get rid of the jagged diagonal lines on my design. There's lots
> >> of them. The picture shows a couple of examples. I've tried different
> >> grid sizes, line widths, but nothing fixes the problem. Redrawing them in
>
On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 17:55:43 -0400, Rick Collins
wrote:
> Oh, I almost forgot, NEVER ask a PhD "anything" to design PCBs. What
> the heck are you thinking???
Are you trolling, or just ignorant?
Peter
--
Peter Brett
Remote Sensing Research Group
Surrey Space Centre
___
Another thought, I usuially place my parts on a 100 mil grid, maybe on
a 50 mil grid.
Steve
___
geda-user mailing list
geda-user@moria.seul.org
http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user
On Oct 6, 2010, at 12:40 PM, Dave N6NZ wrote:
> I think a lot of people confuse the difference between a theoretical
> physicist and an experimental physicist.
>
> A theoretical uses a whiteboard and marker. He/She writes a paper.
>
> An experimental physicist reads the paper and goes -- "Oh,
>> I cannot get rid of the jagged diagonal lines on my design. There's lots of
>> them. The picture shows a couple of examples. I've tried different grid
>> sizes, line widths, but nothing fixes the problem. Redrawing them in order
>> to eliminate any sections does not help. On PCB, it shows
On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 07:09 -0400, gene glick wrote:
> Grid space is 1 mil.
>
Why do you need such a fine grid?
I think I ask you some months ago, and suggested to use larger grid and
employ snap to pins/pads.
Such a fine grid is similar to no grid at all, so I am not really
surprised about you
Are you allowing all direction lines?
While if you are only drawing a straight line between 2 points there should not
be a jagged line.
Can you strip it down to one example trace? And send the file.
Steve
On Oct 7, 2010, at 7:09 PM, gene glick wrote:
> I hope the attachment comes through
I hope the attachment comes through. If not, I'll post it somewhere.
I cannot get rid of the jagged diagonal lines on my design. There's
lots of them. The picture shows a couple of examples. I've tried
different grid sizes, line widths, but nothing fixes the problem.
Redrawing them in orde
28 matches
Mail list logo
