EPICS Controls Argonne National Laboratory

Experimental Physics and
Industrial Control System

1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  <20212022  2023  2024  Index 1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  <20212022  2023  2024 
<== Date ==> <== Thread ==>

Subject: Fanout and asub interaction issues
From: "Wang, Andrew via Tech-talk" <tech-talk at aps.anl.gov>
To: EPICS tech-talk <tech-talk at aps.anl.gov>
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2021 02:29:21 +0000

All,

 

I am encountering an interesting problem and would again appreciate your insights.

 

Essentially, I have a fanout record and asub record that resemble the following pseudocode:

 

record(fanout, “fanout_rec”)

{

              field(SCAN, “Passive”)

              field(LNK0, “aao_rec_1”)

              field(LNK1, “aao_rec_2”)

              field(LNK2, “asub_rec”)

}

 

record(asub, “asub_rec”)

{

              field(SCAN, “Passive”)

              field(SNAM, “c_code”)

              field(INPA, “aao_rec_1”)

              field(FTVA, “CHAR”)

              field(NOA, 2048)

              field(INPB, “aao_rec_2”)

              field(FTVB, “DOUBLE”)

              field(NOB, 2048)

}

 

My goal was to first process the first two aao records so they contain the most up-to-date values before processing “asub_rec”. When I attempt to retrieve the values from both aao records within “c_code”, it is getting previous values that they contained prior to their latest processing.

 

For instance, if “aao_rec_1” contained “hello”, then when I print out “(CHAR*)prec->a” in “c_code”, it prints out nothing. But when I process it again, but with a different value, I print out “hello”, rather than the latest value it has.

 

I’m beginning to think it might be better to use the PP flag for INPA and INPB like this:

 

record(asub, “asub_rec”)

{

              field(SCAN, “Passive”)

              field(SNAM, “c_code”)

              field(INPA, “aao_rec_1 PP”)

              field(FTVA, “CHAR”)

              field(NOA, 2048)

              field(INPB, “aao_rec_2 PP”)

              field(FTVB, “DOUBLE”)

              field(NOB, 2048)

}

 

Any thoughts or suggestions?

 

Andy


Replies:
Re: Fanout and asub interaction issues Mooney, Tim M. via Tech-talk

Navigate by Date:
Prev: Two versions of asyn are complied into an IOC application Hu, Yong via Tech-talk
Next: Re: Fanout and asub interaction issues Mooney, Tim M. via Tech-talk
Index: 1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  <20212022  2023  2024 
Navigate by Thread:
Prev: Two versions of asyn are complied into an IOC application Hu, Yong via Tech-talk
Next: Re: Fanout and asub interaction issues Mooney, Tim M. via Tech-talk
Index: 1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010  2011  2012  2013  2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019  2020  <20212022  2023  2024 
ANJ, 16 Apr 2021 Valid HTML 4.01! · Home · News · About · Base · Modules · Extensions · Distributions · Download ·
· Search · EPICS V4 · IRMIS · Talk · Bugs · Documents · Links · Licensing ·