LabWindows/CVI Idea Exchange

[Adri_K.]

National Instruments introduced the LabWindows/CVI Idea Exchange for submitting and voting on feature requests to be included in future versions of LabWindows/CVI. The LabWindows/CVI R&D team is committed to reviewing every idea submitted via the LabWindows/CVI Idea Exchange, so start posting your ideas today!

[rlkjmv]

I have tried this but could not make it work.

[jmelchio]

We need a way to compare LabWindows/CVI application executables to ensure that they are identical. Currently, if I rebuild an application using identical source code, the output executables are very different from each other (more than just date/time tags).  To ensure configuration control on our applications, we  need a way to verify that an application built with identical source code produces the exact same executable every time.

Is there a way (either using a utility or a program option) to build a flat binary file for output?  If not, it would be beneficial to add that capability.

Thanks,

Joe.

[D_Biel]

Unfortunately, this is not going to be possible. Each time the CVI compiler (or most compilers in general) build a binary, the file will be slightly different. This is a result of timestamps, dynamic memory during the build process, or even compiler optimization algorithms. The resulting binaries will likely be different even if built without code modifications. You can see the same results in many other compilers like Visual C++ for instance.

It is a common request to be able to compare two binaries, but the only way to ensure that it uses the same code is to compare the source code. Currently, CVI does not support a method for building binaries without the variable information. Feel free to make a suggestion on the CVI Idea Exchange.

Edit: I realize now that this topic is titled LabWindows/CVI Idea Exchange, but it is not the actual Idea exchange. This is simply a thread that introduces the Idea Exchange to forum users. Please see the link above for the actual Idea Exchange.

[pblase]

One of the more valuable tools within LabWindows is the ability of the editor to fill in struct elements given the struct name. I also work with Eclipse-based tools for embedded systems work, and it has a similar ability. Unfortunately, whereas Eclipse dynamically analyzes the code as it is written, and can provide stuct elements (and other variable information) as soon as the programmer types it in, LabWindows cannot provide this information until after the code has been successfully compiled. As this may or may not happen for some time after the file has been started, or major changes begun, it is almost useless.

Another useful tool that Eclipse offers that LabWindows does not is the ability to refactor variables and other symbols. Again, Eclipse dynamically tracks the code as it is written, not requiring compilation; refactoring is similar to global replace, except that it tracks the 'C' usage of the symbol and only changes the proper usage. So, for instance, if I use a local variable named "X1" in three different subroutines, and refactor "X1" to "X2" in one of them, only the variable in the particular routine gets changed.It works with any C symbol, including routine names, global and static variables, and structures.

As a matter of fact, I would encourage NI to look into the possiblity of basing LabWindows on the Eclipse platform, as Atmel did in replacing its proprietary Studio software with an Eclipsed-based version. This would enable users to take advantage of a large number of available Eclipse tools, such as source-code management.

[pblase]

How about adding C++ to the compiler? The project I'm working on now is begging for it.

[pblase]

Misc this and that.

* It would be nice to have a tool that automatically generated and maintained .fp files for subroutine libraries. Keeping these up to date is a pain.

* It would be most helpful to have a subroutine call-tree analyzer tool built into LabWindows. I'm working with a rather elaborate user interface at the moment, and I am totally losing track of what routine calls what. It's especially difficult because I use the "CallCtrlCallback" function quite a bit, especially during initialization, and I'm very afraid of accidentally implementing a recursive loop without realizing it. such a tool would, of course, have to be able to follow through the callback functions of controls, and perhaps into NI libraries that use callbacks. 

[Wolfgang]

Hi pblase,

this thread is not the Idea Exchange, just its announcement...

The Idea Exchange can be found here.

[pblase]

Oh, Sorry.

[userIECS]

it would be nice to operate with parallel port in Windows7 64 bit system in applications created in CVI/LabWindows 🙂

is it idea?