kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Jon Evans <jon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I took a quick look at the DRC code, and it looks like it is doing an
exclusive check on the minimum distances for clearance -- i.e. it is
requiring the clearance be greater than the minimum, not greater or equal.
I'm not familiar enough with this part of the code to want to submit a
patch for this now, but maybe someone who is familiar can comment on
whether there is a reason that it is done this way.

-Jon

On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 8:08 PM, Andy Peters <devel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> > On Feb 12, 2017, at 5:59 PM, Andy Peters <devel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > I am using a nightly build from 26 January 2017 on a Mac.
> >
> > The design has a handful of differential pairs. I have set up design
> rules for most nets in the design as 1.6 mm trace width and 1.6 mm
> clearance. I created a net class for the pairs with those clearances and
> widths and made that the “diff pair width” and “diff pair gap” too.
> >
> > Then I set the “Differential Pair Dimensions” in the Dimensions menu to
> that same width and gap. Aside: why is this step necessary? Why doesn’t the
> differential routing use the net classes set up by default?
> >
> > I route the signals and run the DRC, and for every corner in the trace
> pairs, I get an ErrType(x): “Two Track Ends Too Close” complaint. Sometimes
> it’s ErrType(16), sometimes it’s ErrType(17), the rest ErrType(18), but
> they are for all corners. See the picture. This doesn’t make any sense.
>
> This was reported as a bug over a year ago: https://bugs.launchpad.net/
> kicad/+bug/1533551
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> Post to     : kicad-developers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>