Stats

  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 4
  • Subscribers 144
  • Views 5720
  • Members are here 0
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Problem with rodCreatePath function

GabrielVarela

Hi!

I'm working on a custom PCELL that uses rodCreatePath to draw some connections but I've encountered myself with a weird behavior. When using the offset parameter of it, sometimes it doesn't draw the path as expected. 

This is the test case I've prepared to show my problem:

First I define the following list of points:

 path= list(0:0 0:50 -10:60)

And then with different "Offset" values I call the rodCreatePath like this:

rodCreatePath(
?layer list("M1" "drawing")
?width 15.0
?pts path
?offset Offset
?justification "center"
?endType "flush"
?cvId geGetEditCellView()
)

When using an offset of 50 (the same length of the vertical path in the original path) it doesn't work as I've expected.

Any help will be appreciated, thanks.

Gabriel

  • Hi Gabriel,

    First of all your screenshot above doesn't reflect a path with the points (0:0 0:50 -10:60). If I create this rod Path with no offset at all with your point list I get this:

     rodCreatePath(
         ?layer list("M1" "drawing")
         ?width 15.0
         ?pts path
         ?offset 0.0
         ?justification "center"
         ?endType "flush"
         ?cvId geGetEditCellView()
       )

    Subsequently increasing the offset (and reducing the width to 5.0 for better visibility's sake) I get this

    (foreach offset (list 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0) 
       rodCreatePath(
         ?layer list("M1" "drawing")
         ?width 5.0
         ?pts path
         ?offset offset
         ?justification "center"
         ?endType "flush"
         ?cvId geGetEditCellView()
       )
    )

    And this is exactly what I would expect...

    Max

  • in reply to mbracht

    You are right, I made an error while typing, the correct list of points is list(0:0 0:50 10:60).

    I´ve repeated the test using your function call (with the list that I mentioned above) and I get this:

  • in reply to GabrielVarela

    hmmmh...I see the same behavior now and I cannot explain it. In fact it does work for 49.9 and also for 50.1. Maybe it's some rounding effect. I recommend to open a customer support case.

  • in reply to mbracht

    I'll do, thanks for your time!

Community Guidelines

The Cadence Design Communities support Cadence users and technologists interacting to exchange ideas, news, technical information, and best practices to solve problems and get the most from Cadence technology. The community is open to everyone, and to provide the most value, we require participants to follow our Community Guidelines that facilitate a quality exchange of ideas and information. By accessing, contributing, using or downloading any materials from the site, you agree to be bound by the full Community Guidelines.