Jump to content
News about the LabVIEW Wiki! Read more... ×

Rolf Kalbermatter

Members
  • Content Count

    2,807
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    120

Rolf Kalbermatter last won the day on October 30 2018

Rolf Kalbermatter had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

430

2 Followers

About Rolf Kalbermatter

  • Rank
    LabVIEW Aficionado
  • Birthday 06/28/1966

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Netherlands

Contact Methods

LabVIEW Information

  • Version
    LabVIEW 2011
  • Since
    1992

Recent Profile Visitors

5,583 profile views
  1. Rolf Kalbermatter

    Legacy NI-DAQ download

    That sounds bogus.
  2. Rolf Kalbermatter

    Open Package Building Discussion

    If you install it in instr.lib or user.lib and do a menu refresh (application property node) it should be added anyways although with a default icon but what else would you want to add there? Creating a nicer default icon?
  3. Rolf Kalbermatter

    Open Package Building Discussion

    I would tend to say that it is overkill. If you really want to handle this it coudn't really be more than a 1:1 copy of the complete content to the user selected destination directory. Personally I find that this is easier to handle in 7-zip or similar on windowed desktops and on the command line if you work predominantly there (though why would you use LabVIEW then 😀).
  4. I think a better "workaround" is to use the paths from the hierarchy as read from disk to fixup the paths in the hierarchy list after loading and renaming the VIs, before writing it back with the Write VI Hierarchy method. Having to click away warnings sounds pretty unintuitive.
  5. Well yes I do build my own .opg package with a version of the OpenG Package Builder. And this version does indeed not do many things and none that are required to support new post 8.0 features like lvlib, lvclass, etc. The only fixing that is done during the build process is renaming the VIs with a postfix then packing everything up into the opg package which is basically still the same as a vip. If VIPM indeed does fixup the library names on package creation, which it may not even do intentionally but simply may be a side effect of the part where the entire hierarchy is first read into memory and then saved back to the VIs, then there is a serious problem. If the fixup only happens at masscompile time after installation there should be no problem at all. The part in the OpenG Package Builder that does the postfix renaming uses in fact the same method to load and modify and then save the renamed hierarchy but I do execute it in pre 8.0 LabVIEW as the VIs are saved in the format of the LabVIEW version in which this step is performed. As all of the wildcard magic in the library name except the shared library ending itself is really only 2009 and higher gimmicks, it may be that the according function in later LabVIEW versions fixes up the library names on recompilation and then the built package indeed ends up with an undesired fixed library name. In that case VIPM should in fact restore the wildcard shared library names after renaming and recompolation before writing the VI hierarchy back to disk in order to keep the original names. Also I obviously only use the shared library file ending wildcard and not the others for 32/64 bit library distinction. Instead I install both shared libraries to the target directory and then use a post install hook that renames the correct shared library for the current platform to the generic name without bitness indication and deletes the other one. That way the VIs can always use the same generic library name without need to distinguish between bitness there.
  6. Rolf Kalbermatter

    smallest FP size

    Error 1 is not only a GPIB controller error but also the canonical "Invalid Argument" error. And since there is obviously no GPIB node involved here (it's the old 488 and 488.2 GPIB functions that return such errors, not the VISA nodes, so it is actually VERY unlikely that anyone nowadays is even running software that uses them) it must mean that the property node considers the value you pass to it to be an "Invalid Argument". 😀
  7. Rolf Kalbermatter

    implementation of driver files (.dll) - How???

    The header file is indeed not necessary when you have a good and complete documentation. However I haven't seen many such documentations. More often than not the documentation contains typos or remains from older versions of the library that are not valid anymore. The header file should be considered the canonical documentation about data types and function prototypes, and the accompagning documentation contains hopefully more than just a bare repetition of what a good C programmer could determine from the header alone. It should contain things like what errors a function can return, what special memory allocation certain parameters may need, the exact meaning of every parameter and its possible and/or allowed values, or the minimum memory size a string or array pointer should have for the function to write into. If it is really good it also documents things like what prerquests a function may have such as other APIs that need to be called first and in what order. In the end however this last part is best learned from sample code that comes with the library and which you then need to translate to LabVIEW. If you create a library of VIs that resembles the dll library functions, this is not very difficult. But your VIs should NOT be a one to one mapping of parameters on the front panel to function parameters in all cases. In C you may have to pass an array into a function and as a second parameter a size. In LabVIEW the array size is part of the array itself so creating a front panel that contains both an array and a numeric for the array size is pretty stupid (which is what the Import Library Wizard for instance does, because a C header file does not tell the C compiler (and hence the Library Wizard too) which parameter is definining the size of the array buffer). That is left to the programmer to know, either from the naming of the parameter names or much better because it is documented in the documentation like that.
  8. It seems to work fine for the OpenG ZIP library and other libraries I did in the past. So not exactly sure what the problem would be. Of course you need to make sure that the .so and .dll and .framework all end up in the same location relative to the VIs, the shared library name needs to be the same except a possible lib prefix on the Linux platform, and the calling convention needs to be cdecl on all platforms (where you have choice). Most new platforms only know one possible calling convention, so no choice there anyhow. Windows 64-bit for instance uses a new calling convention called fastcall, but that is the only one supported (and generally used outside kernel space).
  9. the last step in the description on the sourceforge post could be made simpler: Instead of changing the library path in all Call Library nodes to <some long path>/lvzmq32.so and having to maintain two versions of the VIs because of the different library name ending, you should replace the .so with .*. LabVIEW will then replace the .* with whatever file ending is standard for the current platfom (.so on Linux, .dll on Windows, .framework on Mac)
  10. Rolf Kalbermatter

    implementation of driver files (.dll) - How???

    Usually the lib library only is the import library for the DLL. C can't directly and magically call DLL functions. Somehow it needs to know in what DLL they are and how to load them into memory. This can be either done explicitly by calling LoadLibrary() and GetProcAddress() or by linking the import library that came with the DLL. The import library is simply a precompiled lib file that does all the LoadLibrary() and GetProcAddress() stuff already. In LabVIEW you can't link in a lib library but have to use a Call Library Node, which is the LabVIEW interface to LoadLibrary() and GetProcAddress().
  11. I never really liked the new combined probe window. The old one I used frequently, yes sure you could get into a real mess with probe windows all over the place and it could be hard to find the one with the new value from the wire you were just single stepping through. But the new probe window doesn't solve that at all, you still need to find the specific probe entry in the list, click on it to see its value in the graphic probe view and then get that damn probe window out of the way again ASAP as it covers so many other things. I usually decide then that I can just as well get rid of it, except "Are you really sure you want to close this window?" Damn it! No of course not, I clicked on the upper right corner by accident and never ever would think about getting rid of this huge monster window on my desktop screen.
  12. I"m not sure it's conflation only. Many seem to be focused specifically on the fact that LabVIEW GUIs don't look like the latest hyped Office version, which of course will be again different over 2 years when yet another modern style design guide claims that everything needs to be high contrast again, or maybe alpha shaded with psychadelic animations (you need to find reason to sell high end GPUs to spreadsheet jugglers). Your second point is indeed one thing I feel LabVIEW could have made more advances. Dynamic control creation while indeed complicated to get into the dataflow paradigma of LabVIEW would be possible with the VI Server reference model, although it would not be classical dataflow programming anymore for such GUIs at least for the part that you use such dynamic instantiation in. XControls was a badly executed project for an in principle good idea, Splitters are a God send for more dynamic UIs together with Subpanels, but to try to edit splitters once they are placed on a frontpanel really can be an exercise in self control. In doing so I feel the same frustration as when I'm forced to edit some Visio drawings. The editor almost seems to know what you want to do, because it always does the opposite of that, no matter what.
  13. Hmm, well that is at least an improvement. Still what you describe is indeed clunky! What I still not understand is that so many people complain about how last century LabVIEW Classic looks, but nobody finds the smooth baby rounded icons and light gray in more light grey colored controls in any way odd. In some ways it reminds me of HPVee, which I thought was dead 😀. Did NI decide that HP might have done something not so bad after all these years of fighting it as pure evil?
  14. You mean multiple projects? That's something, but I prefer to keep all the different windows wherever I put them even if they belong to one and the same project or application. And I defnitely never tile, my God what a mess. My windows have the size they need to have to show the code or frontpanel and that is seldem half of the screen in any direction. Artificially resize them to something dictated by the monitor size feels just as evil as being bound to MDI constraints.
  15. It's unnatural and unneccessary to force everything into one single application window frame. I don't even like the left over MDI artefacts of MS office applications. They used to force every spreadsheet and word document into a single main window, probably because they hired the old filemanager user interface designer for their office products, but since got smarter by allowing at least a seperate application window for every document. That makes it at least usable on multimonitor setups. Macs didn't even have any native support for MDI (and Microsoft and others spend lots of man hours to create this unneccessary "feature" on the Mac for their applications).
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.