I am working on TI-TM4C129X ARM board and trying to write a LOG mechanism.It works good when I call it from the Tasks although I faced a problem when I called it with a timer.As I understand that, printf like functions works with Hwi and this causes the error. My aim is to format strings together with the operations like sprintf(),vsprintf(),memcpy() and memset(). How can I solve this problem ? Is there any equivalent methods that success sprintf() operation ?
Thanks for your answers,
Best Regards.
It sounds like the printf is the problem, not sprintf. Assuming your Log message uses an interrupt (UARTs do), and your timer is called from an interrupt, then your options are limited.
I would set a flag in the timer that your task code can check, once outside the context of the timer. This flag could indicate one of several messages to print, even include a time stamp if that helps to resort things afterwards, since your printed messages will not be in order.
Or, with SWO output (like the Segger j-link), you should be able to just send the data. But to avoid scrambled sentences, you need to halt interrupts while sending out a debug message, which obviously can affect the real-time behavior.
Related
I have an input to a Threshold block, which I have verified is working with a QT GUI number sink.
I want to print the output of the Threshold block to console, preferably using the Message Debug block.
However, the output of the Threshold block is a float stream, which doesn't match the input of the Message Debug block.
Is there a way to convert a float stream into message, or am I going down the wrong hole?
My general aim is: when the input exceeds a certain threshold, print to console. Another program will monitor the console and when there is a print out, this triggers another action. I'm also not sure how to output ONLY when the threshold is exceeded, but one problem at a time.
I'm also not sure how to output ONLY when the threshold is exceeded, but one problem at a time.
Yes, but that problem is a blocker: Std output is a shared thing across all things in the GNU Radio process, so you can't generally guarantee exclusivity.
Let's not go down that route!
Instead, use something designed for exactly for this kind of things decades ago in UNIX!
Named pipes. These are FIFOs that you can handle like files.
So, use a file source to write to a FIFO, and pipe that FIFO into your other program.
It's really simple:
mkfifo /path/to/where/you/want/to/named/pipe
add a file sink that writes to /path/to/where/you/want/to/named/pipe
either make your other software open that /path/to/where/you/want/to/named/pipe, or do something like other_program < /path/to/where/you/want/to/named/pipe (that actually makes the standard (==console-equivalent) input of your other program what you write to that file sink)
I've just read the documentation here again, and it says the supervisor needs to explicitly check for the stop condition in the main loop, but it doesn't explain why it has to do so. What's the reason behind it?
So far for most of my code I've not included this condition and things still work fine. Is there a case I should be worried about here?
Also, if the condition is a standard code like:
if sv.should_stop():
sv.request_stop()
that has to be included every time a session was run, why couldn't it be included in a managed session by default? Meaning to say, is there a special use for writing this code explicitly in the for/while loop for training?
This is in case one of your queues becomes empty, or something else errors out and requires you to stop. If your queues are never empty and there are never any errors then you don't need to check.
My Labview Program works like a charm, until I look at the Block Diagram. No changes are made. I do not Save. Just Ctrl+E and then Ctrl+R.
Now it does not work properly. Only a Restart of Labview fixes the problem.
My Program controls two Scanner arrays for Laser Cutting simultaneously. To force parallel working, I use the Error handler and loops that wait for a signal from the Scanner. But suddenly some loops run more often than they should.
What does majorly happen in Labview when I open the Block diagram that messes with my code?
Edit:
Its hard to tell what is happening without violating my non-disclosure agreement.
I'm controlling two independent mirror-Arrays for Laser Cutting. While one is running one Cutting-Job, the other is supposed to run the other Jobs. Just very fast. When the first is finished they meet at the same position and run the same geometry at the same slow speed. The jobs are provided as *.XML and stored as .net Objects. The device only runs the most recent job and overwrites it when getting a new one.
I can check if a job is still running. While this is true I run a while loop for the other jobs. Now this loop runs a few times too often and even ignores WAIT-blocks to a degree. Also it skips the part where it reads the XML job file, changes the speed part back to fast again and saves it. It only runs one time fast.
#Joe: No it does not. It only runs once well. afterwards it does not.
Youtube links
The way it is supposed to move
The wrong way
There is exactly one thing I can think of that changes solely by opening the block diagram.
When the block diagram opens, any commented-out or unreachable-code-compiler-eliminated sections of code will load their subVIs. If one of those commented out sections of code were somehow interfere with your running code, you might have an issue.
There are only two ways I know of for that to interfere... both of them are fairly improbable.
a) You have some sort of "check for all VIs in memory" or "check for all types in memory" that you're using as a plug-in system. When the commented-out sections load, that would change the VIs in memory. Such systems are not uncommon when parsing XML, so maybe.
b) You are using Run VI method for some dynamically invoked VI to execute as a top-level VI, but by loading the diagram, it discovers that it is a subVI of your current program. A VI cannot simultaneously be top-level and a subVI, so the call to Run VI returns an error.
That's it. I can't think of anything else. Both ideas seem unlikely, but given your claim and a lack of a block diagram, I figured I'd post it as a hypothesis.
In the improbable case someone has a similar problem. The problem was a xml file that was read during run time. Sometimes multiple instances tried to access it and this produced the error.
Quick point to check: are Debug and "retain data in wires" disabled? While it may not change the computations, but it may certainly change the timing of very tight loops, and that was one of the unexpected program behaviors, OP was referring to.
Sometimes when looking at someone else's large Objective-C program, it is hard to know where to begin.
In such situations, I think it would be helpful to log every call to every non-Apple method.
Is there a way to do that? Basically, make one change in some central place, and log every method that is called. Preferably limited to non-Apple methods.
You can set the environment variable NSObjCMessageLoggingEnabled to YES. This will write a log of all message sends in the folder /tmp/msgSends-xxx.
You could add a symbolic breakpoint to objc_msgSend(), and have it log the second parameter without stopping.
How to do it for your own methods only though is a toucher task. Maybe if you could inspect the class name being called and do some magic to have a conditional breakpoint for only calls where the class' prefix matches your own?
I don't think logging every single call is practical enough to be useful, but here's a suggestion in that direction.
On a side note, if it's a large program, it better have some kind of documentation or an intro comment for people to get started with the code.
In any case, every Cocoa application has an applicationDidFinishLaunching... method. It's a good place to start from. Some apps also have their principal (or 'main window') class defined in the Info.plist file. Both these things might give you a hint as to what classes (specifically, view controllers) are the most prominent ones and what methods are likely to have long stack-traces while the program is running. Like a game-loop in a game engine, or some other frequently called method. By placing a breakpoint inside such a method and looking at the stack-trace in the debugger, you can get a general idea of what's going on.
If it's a UI-heavy app, looking at its NIB files and classes used in them may also help identify parts of app's functionality you might be looking for.
Another option is to fire up the Time Profiler instrument and check both Hide missing symbols and Hide system libraries checkboxes. This will give you not only a bird's eye view on the methods being called inside the program, but also will pin-point the most often called ones.
By interacting with your program with the Time Profiler recording on, you could also identify different parts of the program's functionality and correlate them with your actions pretty easily.
Instruments allows you to build your own "instruments", which are really just DTrace scripts in disguise. Use the menu option Instrument >> Build New Instrument and select options like which library you'd like to trace, what you'd like to record when you hit particular functions, etc. Go wild!
That's an interesting question. The answer would be more interesting if the solution supported multiple execution threads and there were some sort of call timeline that could report the activity over time (maybe especially with user events plotted in somehow).
I usually fire up the debugger, set a breakpoint at the main entry point (e.g. - applicationDidFinishLaunching:withOptions:) and walk it in the debugger.
On OSX, there are also some command-line tools (e.g. sample and heap) that can provide some insight.
It seems like some kind of integration with instruments could be really cool, but I am not aware of something that does exactly what you're wanting (and I want it now too after thinking about it).
If one were to log a thread number, and call address, and some frame details, it seems like the pieces would be there to plot the call timeline. The logic for figuring out the appropriate library (Apple-provided or third party) should exist in Apple's symbolicatecrash script.
VB.NET, .NET 4
Hello all,
I have an application that controls an industrial system. It has a GUI which, once a process is started, principally displays the states of various attached devices. It basically works like this:
A System.Timers.Timer object is always running. At each Elapsed event, it polls the devices for their current values and invokes controls on the GUI, updating them with the new values.
A start button is clicked, a process time Stopwatch object is created and started (Labels on the GUI are now invoked and updated on the System.Timers.Timer's Elapsed event, in addition to the other work that is taken care of on this event)
A new thread is created which runs a Process() subroutine
Some Stopwatch objects are created and started (these Stopwatches are periodically restarted during the process via their Restart() method.
Some logic is executed on the new Stopwatchs' Elapsedmilliseconds properties to determine when to do things like write new setpoints to the devices, update the data log, etc...
Here's my problem: The program occasionally freezes. My ignorant efforts at tracking down the problem have led me to suspect that read/writes to the subset of devices that are RS-232 controlled are the culprits most of the time. However, I occasionally see other strange things upon program freeze, e.g., one of the time Labels whose Text property is determined by a Stopwatch's Elapsedmilliseconds property sometimes will show an impossible value (e.g., -50 hours or something).
For the RS-232 problems, I suspect something like a read event is being executed at the same time as a write event and this causes a freeze(?). I tried to prevent this by making sure that all communication with an RS-232 device is funneled through a Transmit() subroutine which has the following attribute:
Which, as far as my ignorance permits me to understand, should force one Transmit() execution to finish completely before another one can start. Perhaps another risk is the code getting blocked here if one Transmit() never finishes?
Regarding the Stopwatch trouble, I speculate that the problem is that the Timer is trying to update a GUI Label at the same time that the Stopwatch's Restart() method is being executed. I'm unsure if this could cause a problem. All I know is that this problem has only occurred at a point in the process when a Restart() call would be made.
I am wondering if I could use a SyncLock or something to lock a Stopwatch while the Label is being updated (or, conversely, while its being restarted)? Or, perhaps I should stop the Timer, restart the Stopwatch, and then start the timer again, like so?:
Timer.Stop
Stopwatch.Restart
Timer.Start
My trepidation regarding how to proceed is due to my complete lack of understanding of how .NET synchronization objects actually work. I've tried slapping a few SyncLocks in various places, but I really have no idea if they're implemented correctly or not. I'm wondering if, having provided all this context, someone really smart might be able to tell me how I'm stupid and how to do this right. I would really appreciate any input. If it would be useful to provide some code snippets, I'd be happy to, I just worry that everything's so convoluted that it would just detract from what I'm hoping is a conceptual question.
Thanks in advance!
Brian
I would consider a shift to a task scheduling framework instead of relying on manual manipulation of timers if your working on anything SCADA related. A simple starting point would be something similar to the hardcodet.Scheduling classes and you can move to something like the beast that is Quartz. Most of these types of frameworks will provide you with a way to pause and resume scheduled actions.
If I'm working with Modbus, I normally keep a local cache of the register values and make changes to any value fire a change event. This has the benefit of allowing you to implement things like refreshing values manually without interfering with your process scheduling and checking for deadband when evaluating your polled response. This happened to be the side effect of implementing a polled protocol to a subset of the OPC DA interface.