#Labview 2013 error 1308 code#
I will post my benchmark code when I get into work today. It made the handles larger and indexing a bit slower but was a huge savings in data space. I think that it was LV version ? that implemented sub ranges and reverse indexing as part of a handle pointing into the array data. In looking at the memory profiler it seems the reverse array does not duplicate the array in the OGTK version. NI did not do it for their vi.lib version so I haven't gone there.
It may allow for optimization but causes a huge ballooning of IS if the SubVI is called 150+ times. I have not done in-lining since that duplicates the code in every calling VI. I have left the default setting for both the OGTK and vi.lib trim string. but not sure what is happening in compiled code. to a maximum volumetric error of <0.06 ppmv of CO2 or <0.3 ppbv of CH4 or <0.05. Could be optimized away, but I will pass them to a different SubVI in both test and blank case. It presents results obtained in 2013 on long lived greenhouse gases. I think I was careful about bringing my trimmed strings out of the test loop. “Match Pattern” may not be optimized for looking a end-anchored patterns (ending in $). The poor performance of the native LabVIEW version with large strings seems to be due to the trim-from-back part. You must actually use your string, or the compiler will eliminate the trim entirely as “dead code” that does nothing.
Similarly, if you are inlining, either directly or via the inline option on a subVI, be careful about dead-code elimination. If you don’t actually use your strings in your test code then you may never convert substring to true string, and thus get really good speed numbers that will not translate into actual performance in the real world. Be careful about being fooled by substrings. I had a play at benchmarking different ways to trim whitespace yesterday.
0 kommentar(er)
