#emc-devel | Logs for 2007-08-22

[02:50:12] <jmkasunich__> jmkasunich__ is now known as jmkasunich
[12:12:30] <cradek_> cradek_ is now known as cradek
[12:44:31] <jepler> skunkworks__: what thing on trunk are you wanting to try out?
[12:45:04] <skunkworks__> I was going to see if your convert to arc for the image to gcode was active.
[12:45:11] <jepler> oh
[12:45:20] <skunkworks__> heh
[12:45:24] <jepler> yeah, it's certain not to be in 2.1
[12:45:31] <jepler> when you asked yesterday I wasn't thinking about that..
[12:47:22] <skunkworks__> The last I remember you talking about it - you had disabled it because it would undercut in cirtain situations.
[12:59:20] <jepler> I remember putting in some hack to fix that
[12:59:23] <jepler> can't recall the details though
[12:59:35] <skunkworks__> Nice. :)
[13:09:09] <jepler> oh -- I remember. It forbids an arc from crossing a 90-degree boundary, which eliminates arcs that undercut
[13:12:49] <skunkworks__> that seems like a good fix
[13:40:57] <alex_joni> * alex_joni is tempted to reply to Chris Mason
[14:38:57] <cradek> jepler: did you check to see if tolerance mode handles uvw correctly?
[14:39:38] <jepler> cradek: no, I didn't actually test what I claimed in that message
[14:39:40] <cradek> oh, I see that I must have dealt with that already
[14:39:55] <cradek> well the code looks reasonable doesn't it
[14:40:20] <jepler> yes now that i'm looking it quite possibly does what I claimed
[19:17:14] <SWPadnos> cradek, did that chance to control.c cause a compiler warning (or do we have the right options to allow inline declarations)?
[19:17:16] <SWPadnos> change
[19:19:56] <jepler> it works fine on ubuntu 5 and 6 though I thought I had the option turned on that warned
[19:20:54] <alex_joni> hi guys
[19:21:02] <alex_joni> * alex_joni almost finished packing
[19:21:08] <SWPadnos> hi Alex
[19:22:52] <alex_joni> hi stephen
[19:23:25] <cradek> uhh it's after a { ... that was OK even in C89 I'm pretty sure
[19:23:36] <cradek> am I on drugs?
[19:23:45] <jepler> I didn't look at the change
[19:24:13] <jepler> oh yeah that is good C89
[19:24:19] <jepler> if ( *(axis_data->jog_vel_mode) ) {
[19:24:19] <jepler> + double v = joint->vel_limit * emcmotStatus->net_feed_scale;
[19:24:33] <jepler> I think it's against jmk's personal style though :-P
[19:24:40] <cradek> yeah well.
[19:25:07] <SWPadnos> ok - I thought non-C++ couldn't handle declarations after code, but I could be stuck in C79 :)
[19:25:25] <jepler> this is what is not OK in old C: int x; x = 3; int y;
[19:25:28] <cradek> if he wouldn't write bugs in the first place I'd never mess up his style :-)
[19:25:46] <jepler> that mixes declarations and code
[19:30:50] <alex_joni> cradek: I guess he's excused atm :P
[19:31:05] <alex_joni> anyone tried wait for input?
[19:31:19] <jepler> not me
[19:31:20] <jepler> I know I should
[19:31:38] <cradek> sorry not here either
[19:31:44] <alex_joni> no sweat
[19:31:55] <alex_joni> I'll be gone 2 weeks, so no chance to fix your reported bugs :P
[19:32:06] <jepler> make your getaway before we find the bugs
[19:32:09] <alex_joni> heh.. "Good job on adding the poll to linuxcnc.org"
[19:32:09] <cradek> the question is did YOU try it?
[19:32:16] <alex_joni> I did try it
[19:32:25] <alex_joni> and various combinations to test the g-code api
[19:32:41] <alex_joni> it seems right to me.. but another pair of brains can't hurt
[19:36:05] <jepler> alex_joni: the basics seem to work
[19:36:14] <jepler> alex_joni: is it correct that none of the digital I or O is implemented yet?
[19:37:17] <alex_joni> analog
[19:37:29] <alex_joni> digital should be both there
[19:38:15] <jepler> er, yes
[19:38:21] <jepler> none of the analog I or O is implemented yet
[19:38:27] <alex_joni> right
[19:38:44] <alex_joni> although it should be a 20 minutes fix
[20:38:39] <alex_joni> well guys, I'm signing off
[20:38:55] <alex_joni> I'll try checking in from time to time
[20:39:11] <SWPadnos> have fun in France
[20:39:18] <alex_joni> thanks, I'll sure try
[20:42:34] <alex_joni> weather is promising