#emc-devel | Logs for 2008-11-14

[12:55:44] <alex_joni> jtr: thanks
[12:55:59] <jtr> Thank you!
[13:21:16] <CIA-38> EMC: 03bigjohnt 07TRUNK * 10emc2/docs/src/hal/halui_examples.lyx: start of halui examples
[13:22:42] <CIA-38> EMC: 03bigjohnt 07v2_2_branch * 10emc2/docs/src/hal/halui_examples.lyx: start of halui examples
[13:22:55] <BigJohnT> * BigJohnT heads for work
[15:32:00] <cradek> jepler: did you see seb added index mask?
[15:32:26] <cradek> I think that means hm2 will work as well as the old driver for me
[15:32:39] <jepler> cradek: dandy!
[15:32:47] <cradek> when he gets the better velocity thing done, it will be better than the old driver
[15:34:10] <jepler> did cvs get the firmware with index-enables on appropriate pins?
[15:34:34] <cradek> do you mean the one I'm using, or hm2?
[15:35:47] <jepler> hm2
[15:36:57] <cradek> I think so. seb said he got new firmwares from mesa that had the index enables available to the driver.
[15:42:35] <seb_kuzminsky> the new firmware is in trunk
[15:42:49] <seb_kuzminsky> trunk also has some tweaks to the hm2 encoder so it should be more efficient i think
[15:42:57] <seb_kuzminsky> you only use index when homing, right?
[15:42:58] <cradek> oh hi :-)
[15:43:16] <cradek> I use spindle index for threading/tapping
[15:43:20] <seb_kuzminsky> good morning
[15:43:21] <cradek> X/Z index only for homing
[15:43:58] <cradek> brb
[15:43:58] <seb_kuzminsky> when tapping, does the motion planner or whatever look at the index signal, or does the encoder logic look at it to zero the encoder count?
[15:44:16] <cradek> the usual encoder logic does it
[15:44:23] <seb_kuzminsky> i see
[15:44:37] <seb_kuzminsky> well i still think the new code's better
[15:44:57] <seb_kuzminsky> jepler: i moved the latch/ctrl register back out of tram and into a normal read
[15:45:09] <seb_kuzminsky> hope u dont mind
[15:45:53] <seb_kuzminsky> bbl
[16:01:53] <CIA-38> EMC: 03cradek 07TRUNK * 10emc2/docs/man/man9/.cvsignore: new component
[16:38:23] <jepler> seb_kuzminsky: no problem
[17:40:29] <cradek> huh, I could swear that the override limits checkbutton in AXIS doesn't grey out when it's not appropriate to use it. but, when I test in sim, that seems to work fine. I'll look closer when I get home.
[18:57:49] <SWPadnos> oh, so apparently adding the loggers as cron jobs @reboot didn't help
[18:57:53] <SWPadnos> or I didn't do it right
[19:16:22] <CIA-38> EMC: 03seb 07TRUNK * 10emc2/src/emc/usr_intf/axis/extensions/togl.c: Fix a segfault found by Coverity's Prevent.
[19:23:05] <cradek> neat
[19:23:45] <SWPadnos> hmmm. I guess we dropped the idea of having coverity do code analysis on EMC2
[19:23:58] <SWPadnos> I don't remember if there was a reason or if we just forgot about it
[19:24:03] <cradek> it seemed there was something weird about it but I don't remember
[19:24:19] <SWPadnos> yeah, like them needing some corporate contact person or something
[19:28:28] <jepler> if (f == NULL) {
[19:28:28] <jepler> printf("Memory fault -- core dumped\n");
[19:28:28] <jepler> exit(1);
[19:28:33] <jepler> http://www.bsdlover.cn/study/UnixTree/V7/usr/src/games/fortune.c.html
[19:28:34] <jepler> how bizarre
[19:28:49] <cradek> ha
[19:30:25] <jepler> surely exiting with status 1 never dumped core
[19:30:46] <jepler> but surely in those days they knew what that meant
[19:30:47] <cradek> no, I think it's a joke
[19:30:59] <jepler> well that's possible
[19:31:04] <cradek> it's fortune...
[19:31:05] <jepler> it's not a bad fortune, I suppose
[19:31:09] <cradek> right
[19:59:00] <CIA-38> EMC: 03seb 07TRUNK * 10emc2/src/libnml/nml/nml_srv.cc: fix a segfault found by Coverity
[20:04:33] <CIA-38> EMC: 03seb 07TRUNK * 10emc2/src/libnml/nml/nml_srv.cc: fix a deref-before-NULL-check segfault found by Coverity
[20:06:35] <alex_joni> does the grid link work for you? http://emc2-buildbot.colorado.edu/buildbot/
[20:08:17] <SWPadnos> no
[20:08:31] <CIA-38> EMC: 03bigjohnt 07TRUNK * 10emc2/docs/src/config/stepconf.lyx: add some info on the .stepconf file
[20:09:07] <SWPadnos> heh: (Nov 14 13:00) rev=[version is too-long] success hardy-x86-trunk-sim #18: build successful
[20:09:18] <SWPadnos> all the versions are ?? or too long :)
[20:10:01] <alex_joni> wonder why dapper fails on the runtests for 2.2. on RT
[20:10:30] <CIA-38> EMC: 03bigjohnt 07v2_2_branch * 10emc2/docs/src/config/stepconf.lyx: add info on the .stepconf file
[20:10:37] <BigJohnT> alex_joni: is cloaked
[20:10:49] <SWPadnos> actually, he's away
[20:11:02] <alex_joni> sorry.. forgot to clear the flag
[20:11:07] <SWPadnos> (and cloacked, but that's a different matter)
[20:11:10] <SWPadnos> cloaked
[20:11:11] <BigJohnT> LOL
[20:11:21] <alex_joni> I resent that remark
[20:11:40] <SWPadnos> huh. I wonder what happened to my cloak
[20:12:01] <BigJohnT> your klingon one?
[20:12:20] <alex_joni> SWPadnos: it stayed as a devel :)
[20:12:26] <alex_joni> do you want to upgrade it?
[20:12:36] <SWPadnos> no, it appears to be gone (at least to me)
[20:12:47] <alex_joni> looks ok here
[20:12:54] <alex_joni> 22:08 -!- SWPadnos [n=Me@emc/developer/SWPadnos]
[20:13:14] <SWPadnos> huh
[20:13:48] <SWPadnos> strange. It showed up incorrently, I identified (was already identified), and a few seconds later it got corrected
[20:13:51] <SWPadnos> go figure
[20:14:03] <alex_joni> * alex_joni is gone figuring
[21:29:16] <CIA-38> EMC: 03seb 07TRUNK * 10emc2/src/emc/sai/driver.cc: fix a resource leak found by Coverity
[21:42:07] <CIA-38> EMC: 03seb 07TRUNK * 10emc2/src/hal/drivers/hal_vti.c: fix two off-by-one array overrun errors found by Coverity
[22:08:33] <seb_kuzminsky> cradek: are you here?
[22:08:57] <cradek> yes
[22:09:18] <seb_kuzminsky> i just committed a change to emc/motion/command.c that i'd like you to review
[22:09:35] <cradek> * cradek kicks CIA-38
[22:09:36] <CIA-38> ow
[22:10:01] <seb_kuzminsky> * seb_kuzminsky kicks CIA over and over
[22:10:14] <seb_kuzminsky> bbl
[22:10:21] <seb_kuzminsky> * seb_kuzminsky commits and runs away
[22:10:53] <cradek> this fix is wrong
[22:11:36] <cradek> joint_num is the one you're requesting get unhomed
[22:12:42] <cradek> negative means unhome all (-1, or looking at the code, any negative number other than -2), or unhome only those that are volatile (-2)
[22:13:35] <cradek> the test you replaced was not a test for valid joint
[22:13:59] <cradek> bbl, going home...
[22:17:00] <cradek> hm, I see why you made the change. I think there is an error case that was unhandled
[22:17:46] <cradek> for instance in the else, joint_num was never tested against num_joints
[22:18:24] <cradek> so UNHOME 999 would crash because GET_JOINT_ACTIVE_FLAG dereferences joint
[22:18:30] <cradek> I think
[22:18:37] <cradek> let's look at it more later...
[22:58:53] <CIA-38> EMC: 03seb 07TRUNK * 10emc2/src/emc/motion/command.c: second attempt to fix the illegal joint in UNHOME