|
|
Magic Mailing List |
|
From: R. Timothy Edwards (tim AT stravinsky DOT jhuapl.edu) Date: Mon Feb 10 2003 - 15:01:48 EST
Dear Jeff, > Hi Tim, i think i just replied to you when i meant to followup > (post) my last email. That's okay. I'm deep into polygon pushing at the moment, so I haven't even had time to look at the rulesets and what their implications are. I'm pretty sure (without constructing a proof. . . ugh) that your "edge4way1" rule can always be effectively instituted with two edge4way rules. If so, then the question is whether the rule happens often enough that you would actually get some speedup out of implementing it as a single rule (as opposed to making it a macro which decomposes itself into several rules in the DRC database). I have started a project to make a "techbuilder" script which could compile rulesets from a graphical description that would basically double as a design rule manual. I'd like to have the headaches associated with working out edge4way rules handled automatically, so that techfile writing becomes a process that anyone with a design rule manual sitting in front of them can do. I'd like to work out some of the remaining fundamental issues of how magic does (or doesn't do) design rule checking so that magic can handle all the rules that commercial design rule check programs can (such as doing wide metal rules). I get lots of kudos for what I've done with magic version 7.2, but any of the other developers would quickly (and correctly) point out that everything I've added (with the exception of non-Manhattan geometry) is largely superficial, and doesn't touch on some of the fundamental problems of magic, including unimplementable DRC rules and lots of extraction issues. Regards, Tim
|
|
|
|