Grampa_of_Oliva_n_Eden

You would not know of a link that would help me understand this statement, would you? Ben

Keep them comments coming! What is in place now definately needs improvement. Not being able to search it easily if a big problem. As recently as this morning I was telling someone they were looking at a previously reported bug, but lacking an easy way to search the bug list, I did not even attempt to find the original posting of the bug and any possible work-arounds. The ability to update the bug listing is another big short coming. The bug I was looking at this AM had been fixed in LV 8 but that only became apparent when it worked for those who tried the example in LV8 and did not for the LV 7.1 people. For that reason alone, I am concidering changing my practices to first post the bug here on LAVA and then point at it from the NI side. But BOY does that seem like a pain! I believe I am the same page as far as doing NI's work. Durring the initial couple of months of the Bug List, I was calling NI personally to log every bug! When I finally heard that NI would be monitoring the bug thread, I felt the same way I did when my son was toilet trained! FINALLY! Again thank you for sharing your thoughts and tolerating my questions! Ben

It almost sounds like every upgrade is unique! Talk about personalizing settings! Has anyone done two updates yet where both seem to be correct? Ben

Nor do I (although the Champions will be sounding this theme repeatedly). Ben

Good point Warren! From where we stand today, that is probably one of the next changes we implement. I'll try to bring that up at the meeting. :gathering: Historically speaking, the Bug List on the NI Forum was implemented using the medium that was at hand, "The Exchange". But now that it recognized and tracked by support and ack'd with CAR's we can still make it better. A single searchable list as you mentioned, would be a nice improvement. Now regarding the editing of a single list to purge the false alarms. I will check with Molly from NI who runs the Exchange, to see if what you proposed is possible. What I had understood previously was that NI did let you edit posting because they had a mirror that complicated edits/syn's...whatever. I still think a moderator can edit posts over there so perhaps the appropriate product support engineers can be granted rights to delete bad entries. The reason I am dwelling on the NI version and not supporting the LAVA version is I feel it is prudent to move slowly with this project. NI is supporting the project as is and it is starting to work. I think is was Ronald Reagan that said "You do not change horses in mid-stream." I really think we are in the middle of it at the moment. Besides, as you mentioned, the links do not all have to point to the NI Exchange. The official list would only be an index. The content can be elsewhere. In the long run the NI Bug List will bring in more readers to LVA as more links in the NI List point at LAVA. Hold it, I just had a thought! May be I should learn to set up a LAVA poll about a friendly little competition between the various forums. The most number of bugs reported and confirmed. We could break it down by LV version, quarter, year ... What do you think? Am I getting out of control with this idea? Maybe its time to do something else... Ben

Hi all, I am a relative newbie here on this forum so please excuse me if this is posted in the wrong forum etc. As some of you already know, I have been very active on the NI forum and I have been trying to nurture the idea of an Official Bug List for LV. Before I proceed, let me say that the list on the NI site is not intended to replace the LAVA Bug List. It should complement it. After about 7-8 months of this list and "back-room" discusions by the LabVIEW Champions, the list is our initial entry into forcing the BUg List into the public. I would like to invite everyone to please voice their opinion on the Bug List either here in this thread or in this thread http://forums.ni.com/ni/board/message?boar...d=800&jump=true on the NI Dev-Exchange. Your thoughts, opinions and support of the Bug List are very important and I invite you all to share your thoughts. Ben BTW: Yes, what we have done thus far is crude, but with your help, it can get better.

My confirmation e-mail for all of my LV 8 installs so far have included that reference to LV 8.1. That includes the one I registered BEFORE LV 8.0 was released! Ben

I'd say! I have been sitting back and watching you go. :thumbup: Contribution total-wise, LV 8.0.1 (soon to be known as LV 8.0.2 Beta) will be one of your favorites! LV 6.0.2 was a very good version BTW. Ben

The time Y'all are reporting are making this update look very expensive! I think I will wait if and see if they release the "Reader Digest" version. Ben

I also would like the full installer. I am looking at a project where I will be upgrading a customer's machine to LV 8.X. Between LV 8.0 the drivers, and two disks for Vision stuff, I was bracing myself for watching disks install for between 4-6 hours. Add another 2-4 for LV 8.0.1 upgrade... I am looking at a possible 10 hour day and that is before I even launch the updated application! Ben

I have added this thread to the official NI BUg List that can be found here. http://forums.ni.com/ni/board/message?boar...message.id=1882 For those of you that do not frequent the NI Developer Exchange I want to make sure you are aware that the NI Bug List is now Official as I mention here. (See reply #20). http://forums.ni.com/ni/board/message?boar...message.id=1698 The Official NI Bug list should NOT be viewed as competition for the LAVA Bug List. It should be viewed as a compliment of same. "Keep them bug and letters coming!" Ben

Nicely done i2dx! What is the "rep" property you are setting in that example? I can't say I've seen it before. Ben

Paraphrasing a posting by Rolf years ago.... "Self- modifying code is a very bad idea." OT > AK2DM I am finding it hard to navigate without the stars. Ben

I took a quick peek at this the other day and it reminds me of a similar "form" of bug that involved a cluster. It looks like the optimization and buffer re-use logic is out of whack. The original buffer holding the constant is being updated instead of copied. Code changes that force execution order can help. Looks like constant folding is out of control. Just my quick guess, Ben

Hi Alphaone, I just tried out your posted VI and it works fine as long as the VI does not go idle. I dropped into a VI and did a "New" followed by a "get". The returned ref was good to acquire a semaphore and release it. I suspect you are letting your VI go idle or you are not executing in the correct order. I used a sequnece structure to force your VI to work. Error in/out cluster would be a better approach. I hope that hlep, Ben

Yen wrote " . Plus there are no s here. " I did notice there was something missing. Although I have industrial and R&D customers, I use LV to help make smarter bombs and bullets. Ben

That example answers the earlier voiced question regarding why the LV devlopment environment does not force good style. I do have to wonder if that is due to the code being developed using scripting. Ben

This should be the last update for now. The following quotes came from NI support. " I wanted to let you know that I filed that CAR for you -- it's already been passed to a developer. Thanks for keeping us on our toes! " and re:the CAR# "... it's 3QPET23Q." As far as I know this is the first confirmed bug for the released version of LV 8. So... Congratulations Joe for your shiny new CAR! Ben

Confirmed by NI. A CAR will be filled. Ben

I brought both of these issues to NI's attention under service request # 734039. I will update if I learn more. Ben

A license manager would be OK, but would prefer to have more options for moving licenses between computers, such as dongle, locally generated key code (licensefile) or floating license I would have selected option #3 shown above (i went for "other") if it only invloved a file. USB support can hurt determinism in RT and traditional serial ports are disappearing from machines these days. RE: some of the posts saying that NI hardware always included in LV apps. I have to admit that I am part of the problem with this line of thinking. It is not unusual for my applications to be completely NI hardware free. This is not my intention (I try to sell NI stuff). Many of my customers come to me after they have purchased a pile of non-NI stuff and need it integrated. Ben