EPICS Controls Argonne National Laboratory

Experimental Physics and
Industrial Control System

1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  <20002001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024  Index 1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  <20002001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024 
<== Date ==> <== Thread ==>

Subject: Re: support for output records
From: [email protected] (Bob Dalesio)
To: Benjamin Franksen <[email protected]>, "Leo R. Dalesio" <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2000 10:00:27 -0700
At 12:40 PM 2/7/00 +0100, Benjamin Franksen wrote:
>Leo R. Dalesio wrote:
>> 
>> I would think that a soft bo with an undefined DOL that has
>> been processed at initialization should be 0 and defined. If someone
>> wanted the value to be something other than 0 - they could have put
>> the constant 1 in the DOL field. As some of the configuration tools
>> do not define a field if it is the same value as the default, an undefined
>> field should be construed as a 0. Just my opinion....
>
>The question is, of course, relevant to output records in general.
>
>The Release Notes to R3.13 say: "Another feature is is that it is now
>possible to distinguish link constants with a value of 0 from links that
>have never been given a value".
>
>I believe that the distinction between zero ("0") and undefined ("") has
>been made in order to allow undefined links to be completely ignored by
>the record support in contrast to constant-zero links. Link behavior
>should be consistent throughout the system and IMHO undefined is not the
>same as zero.
>
>If people want to have a zero value at init, they can either set it in
>the database, or, if they insist on a different *default* behavior for
>the DOL links, we (or they) can set 'initial("0")' in the record's
>definition of the DOL field and everything works as expected without
>changing the record support.
>
>I'd like to know if it is the general opinion that an output record that
>has been processed is defined (i.e. UDF==FALSE), even when 
>- no value has been put into VAL,
>- DOL is undefined, and
>- no readback was done by the device support.
If PINI is set to Yes and the record gives it nothing to do -
that is to say:
	DOL is undefined
	Nothing has been put into VAL
	There is no device support from which to read the new value
Then the initialization is done and it should not be UDF

	Bob


References:
Re: VxWorks global variable device support (boRecord.c) saa
Re: VxWorks global variable device support (boRecord.c) Benjamin Franksen
Re: support for output records Benjamin Franksen

Navigate by Date:
Prev: Re: Using EPICS CA from Python Noboru Yamamoto
Next: training Bob Dalesio
Index: 1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  <20002001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024 
Navigate by Thread:
Prev: Re: support for output records Benjamin Franksen
Next: training Bob Dalesio
Index: 1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  <20002001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024 
ANJ, 10 Aug 2010 Valid HTML 4.01! · Home · News · About · Base · Modules · Extensions · Distributions · Download ·
· Search · EPICS V4 · IRMIS · Talk · Bugs · Documents · Links · Licensing ·