At last I tried to broke the 32 layer barrier in pcbnew. Needed the
assembly and courtyard on both sides, so the ECO are not enough. Also
they need to be flippable, too.
Result: succesful, learnt things that could be useful later.
First, the huge LAYER_NUM/LAYER_MSK work I done previously was in
On 1 September 2013 19:30, Dick Hollenbeck d...@softplc.com wrote:
To maintain referential integrity in the netlist XML file, in the face of
ALIASES, I had
to export the alias names as elements of the libparts that used them.
This was done in commit 4306, testing.
If you try and use this
On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 10:30:47AM +0100, Brian Sidebotham wrote:
I could really do with more layers too. Although when I say *more* layers,
I mean that I could really do with dedicated assembly and courtyard layers.
Exactly what I have done... probably for your same reasons, too.
The
A thing happened that gave me insight on the problems of having the file
name equal to the name inside the file (and what happens when these
mismatch).
Real world current usage: truetype/opentype fonts. You name the file
however you want but the internal name wins; the systems scans all the
fonts
Hello Lorenzo,
I think that the problem you described is unrelated to the filename system.
It already exists in the legacy libraries. It is why the order of the
libraries is sometimes important (if two libraries contain a module with
the same name, CvPcb and pcbnew pick the one from the topmost
On Mon, 9/2/13, Brian Sidebotham brian.sidebot...@gmail.com wrote:
Subject: Re: [Kicad-developers] Experiments and considerations for more layer
To: Kicad Developers kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Date: Monday, September 2, 2013, 5:30 PM
On
On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 03:45:23AM -0700, Cirilo Bernardo wrote:
Using IDF also gives us another method of specifying the board outline, but
to be honest the specification has severe defects; for example, arcs are not
correctly constrained so for any arc specified in IDF there are 4 different
On 2 September 2013 10:39, Lorenzo Marcantonio
l.marcanto...@logossrl.comwrote:
On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 10:30:47AM +0100, Brian Sidebotham wrote:
I could really do with more layers too. Although when I say *more*
layers,
I mean that I could really do with dedicated assembly and courtyard
On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 12:13:07PM +0100, Brian Sidebotham wrote:
Actually, I think I want to change my answer a bit. Because as I hinted, I
don't need more layers, I need better layer versatility. I want to be able
to rename layers (Already achievable!), but I also want to be able to
Well...
On Sep 2, 2013 4:37 AM, Brian Sidebotham brian.sidebot...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 1 September 2013 14:27, Dick Hollenbeck d...@softplc.com wrote:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Executable
Read about relocations.
Brian,
I think your idea of looking at the PE headers is good.
On Sep 2, 2013 4:35 AM, Brian Sidebotham brian.sidebot...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 1 September 2013 02:37, Dick Hollenbeck d...@softplc.com wrote:
On Aug 31, 2013 5:35 PM, Brian Sidebotham brian.sidebot...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 31 August 2013 21:39, Dick Hollenbeck d...@softplc.com wrote:
On
On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 08:55:31PM -0600, Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
that's another 26 (or more) layers. Still think 64 will be
enough?
I said it was a mid-term solution.
BTW, long long is part of the C standard and excluded from the C++
standard. Good luck with Windows (it doesn't
12 matches
Mail list logo
