Leaderboard

So I managed to find the underlying issue and at least one solution to it - sharing the information here. The Icon editor enumerates the font list in linux with command 'fc-list'. With OpenSUSE 43.2 / LV 2016 combo the fontlist looks like this: The listed fonts are essentially a list of the font files with full paths, and that does not work well with the font tool LV uses. If this list looks similar to yours and the fonts are not looking pretty, I have a solution for you - read on. To fix this a command 'fc-list : family' should be used instead, to come up with a list like this: There are two solutions (and I'm sure there are more) - you can decide which one to pursue depending on your expertise. As the Icon Editor in LV2016 (starting with LV2011 I think) is in packed library for execution optimizing purposes, the Icon Editor code can't directly be altered to fix this. One can come up with a solution where the command 'fc-list' is overridden in linux so it will always use the (proper for LabVIEW) format 'fc-list : family'. This may have some unwanted side effects if other programs use the command in similar fashion, so this may not be the best solution. It would be pretty easy to use for assessing whether this could be your problem also. There are multiple trivial ways of implementing this, so I won't be giving an exact solution - here is a list of them: https://lmgtfy.app/?q=override+command+in+linux Darren Nattinger has provided the source code for Enhanced Icon editor in https://forums.ni.com/t5/Enhanced-Icon-Editor/Icon-Editor-Source-Files-for-LabVIEW-2016/m-p/3538808 - You can replace the packed library LabVIEW uses as editor with this source. There are easy 3 step instructions on the site - even I managed to do that. Please give kudos to Darren should you go this way. When you have the shipped Icon Editor replaced with the source, you can directly edit the file in /usr/local/natinst/LabVIEW-2016/resource/plugins/NIIconEditor/Miscellaneous/Font/Linux.vi so it uses the correct form, like this:

Is it ever conceivable that there will be more than two Queues to monitor? If so then the last one would scale up better. That being said it isn't the one I'd find myself using, just because the other two are much more readable. I'd probably go with the first one. Swap values is pretty handy when you actually need to swap two values. Here you aren't really using one of the values. From a memory or speed perspective I bet you can't measure the small amount of difference (if any) that is taking place.