Huge number from "Actual Start" node of timed loop

[george seifert]

I'm getting a huge number (18446744069414584318) from the Actual Start node of a timed loop at random intervals that I've seen start at just a few minutes into the program. The period of the loop is 20 seconds. My code is too huge to post so I'm trying to pare it down to something I can post. No luck reproducing it with a minimal test so far. There is another timed loop running while the problem loop is running. I just thought I check and see if anyone has run into this. It sure smells like a bug to me. This is in LV 8.6 on Windows XP. It's happened in the development system on my PC and also in an executable on another PC.

George

[LAVA 1.0 Content]

QUOTE (george seifert @ Jan 12 2009, 09:23 AM)

I'm getting a huge number (18446744069414584318) from the Actual Start node of a timed loop at random intervals that I've seen start at just a few minutes into the program. The period of the loop is 20 seconds. My code is too huge to post so I'm trying to pare it down to something I can post. No luck reproducing it with a minimal test so far. There is another timed loop running while the problem loop is running. I just thought I check and see if anyone has run into this. It sure smells like a bug to me. This is in LV 8.6 on Windows XP. It's happened in the development system on my PC and also in an executable on another PC.

George

The "Actual Start" proprty of a Timed loop reutrns the CPU ms tick count. That value rolls-ver every 32 days (or there-abouts). The value only makes sense in the context of what the "Expect Start" time value.

So far I don't see a bug in what you are reporting.

Take care,

Ben

[george seifert]

QUOTE (neB @ Jan 12 2009, 12:30 PM)

The "Actual Start" proprty of a Timed loop reutrns the CPU ms tick count. That value rolls-ver every 32 days (or there-abouts). The value only makes sense in the context of what the "Expect Start" time value.

So far I don't see a bug in what you are reporting.

Take care,

Ben

I forgot to mention that the source type is "1KHZ <reset at structure start>". Also this huge number comes and goes. Most of the time I get the right number, but every once in a while (no pattern here) I get that huge number. Definitely not expected behavior.

George

[Neville D]

Are the priorities of all your timed loops set to different values?

Neville.

[george seifert]

QUOTE (Neville D @ Jan 12 2009, 01:50 PM)

Are the priorities of all your timed loops set to different values?

Neville.

No, both priorities are set to 100. I'm trying to reproduce the error again so I can try it with the priorities set to different values. But I don't think that should be the cure. Shouldn't one of the loops get delayed by just a bit instead of giving me a wildly wrong number for the actual start time?

George

[george seifert]

I got it to fail with one loop priority set to 90 and the other set to 100.

George

[Neville D]

QUOTE (george seifert @ Jan 13 2009, 08:19 AM)

I got it to fail with one loop priority set to 90 and the other set to 100.

George

OK.. well thats progress.. of a sort. My only reason for asking about priorities was that I thought you were NOT supposed to give timed loops the same priority. You need to pick a slightly different value for each one; don't remember where I read that.. anyway, you have got the error with different values as well.

Sorry don't have any other helpful suggestions, just that I always found timed loops to have weird issues in the past and have steered clear of them ever since.

Neville.