EPICS Controls Argonne National Laboratory

Experimental Physics and
Industrial Control System

1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  <20042005  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  2000  2001  2002  2003  <20042005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024 
<== Date ==> <== Thread ==>

Subject: RE: Initializing a record VAL field with a constant
From: "J. Frederick Bartlett" <[email protected]>
To: Marty Kraimer <[email protected]>
Cc: "Bartlett, Fritz" <[email protected]>, tech-talk <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 13:58:02 -0500
Marty,

  Your suggestion has the expected behavior. Given that setting the VAL and
PINI fields correctly initializes the record, why should setting the INP
field to a constant value ever be needed? If it is not needed, why does the
"Record Reference Manual" discuss the INP method rather than the more
intuitive PINI method?

								Fritz

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marty Kraimer [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 1:27 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: tech-talk
> Subject: Re: Initializing a record VAL field with a constant
>
>
>
>
> J. Frederick Bartlett wrote:
>
> >  Recently I was adding some new records to our name/value
> server IOC and I
> >noticed an unexpected behavior. My new records, which are of
> type longin and
> >ai, are used to supply system-wide values, i.e. firmware version
> numbers for
> >comparison with hardware, computational constants, etc., for the
> rest of the
> >control system. The records are initialized by placing a
> constant value in
> >the INP field of the record definition text.
> >
> >  As one would expect, after initialization the UDF field for
> these records
> >is zero, indicating that the VAL field has had a value assigned at some
> >point in the record's existence. What I did not expect was that the SEVR
> >field is set to INVALID and the STAT field to UDF. I would have expected
> >that, if you are going to bother to set the UDF field to zero,
> consistency
> >would dictate that the SEVR and STAT fields would be given the value
> >NO_ALARM, just as it would be when the VAL field is set by a CA put
> >operation. Is this behavior intentional and, if so, why?
> >
> >  I also discovered that, for the stringin record, this
> technique of setting
> >an initial value by placing a constant -- in this case a string
> constant --
> >in the INP field does not work at all. Is there a corresponding
> method for
> >initializing the VAL field of a stringin record?
> >
>
> Just initialize the VAL field directly. Also specify PINI.
>
>
> record(stringin,"mrkstring") {
>          field(VAL,"test string")
>          field(PINI,"YES")
> }
>
> This works with current releases. I am not sure about 3.14.4
>
> Marty
>
>


Replies:
Re: Initializing a record VAL field with a constant Andrew Johnson
References:
Re: Initializing a record VAL field with a constant Marty Kraimer

Navigate by Date:
Prev: Hytec drivers & PSI CVS Korhonen Timo
Next: Re: Initializing a record VAL field with a constant Andrew Johnson
Index: 1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  <20042005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  2021  2022  2023  2024 
Navigate by Thread:
Prev: Re: Initializing a record VAL field with a constant Marty Kraimer
Next: Re: Initializing a record VAL field with a constant Andrew Johnson
Index: 1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  <20042005  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 ·