Called Labview VI can't find it's controls or sub vi's

[CoastalMaineBird]

Do you think that they could be stripped out even if they are in the always included list?

--- I don't know.  I recommend you turn off  ALL the stripping and test again, just to answer the question.  

If the problem persists then I'm barking up the wrong tree.

If it goes AWAY, you can live with the bloat (in my case, the EXE was 1.5 times the size), or chase which item is not being found.

[Timmar]

Steve,

Read your Post....

Hmmm, When you read my post you must have thought you had heard an Echo.

They seem like 2 peas in a pod.

A solution to Error 1003: I used option 0x10 in the create reference and it showed the "Prompt user for missing Controls/Vi's"

It allowed me to pinpoint the problem so much faster. 

I do not post this to rub salt into the wound, but as advice to others finding the same problem.

Your insight to the problem being a typedef is most helpful, I use them extensively throughout all of my programming.

In fact it is considered "Best Paractice".

Insert Static Reference to the typedef'd controls did the Trick

http://forums.ni.com/t5/LabVIEW/Mysterious-Error-1003-in-COMPILED-rtexe/m-p/1383732

Thanks for posting, your experiences.

It is nasty to require this workaround, but I am comfortable doing it as I do not have to compromise good coding practices.

Perhps NI could look into this, It sounds like a code bug.

[CoastalMaineBird]

A solution to Error 1003: I used option 0x10 in the create reference and it showed the "Prompt user for missing Controls/Vi's"

--- Hmmm.  Didn't know about that.  I even wished for a way for it to tell me which VI was missing and no one answered.  Wish you had been on my earlier thread :-).

Although I was in an RTEXE, with no user interface available, so I don't know what good it might have done.

It allowed me to pinpoint the problem so much faster. 

--- No doubt.  It probably would have told me to find X.ctl, which would have led to discovering the problem sooner.

I do not post this to rub salt into the wound, but as advice to others finding the same problem.

--- No offense taken, I understand.

It is nasty to require this workaround, but I am comfortable doing it as I do not have to compromise good coding practices.

Perhaps NI could look into this, It sounds like a code bug.

--- Not sure what piece you are uncomfortable with.  In my case, I had to include a static reference to the TYPEDEF, so that I could keep the DISCONNECT TYPEDEFS flag on, and still keep it working.  That doesn't make me uncomfortable, does it you?

I don't see it as a code bug.  The stand-alone VI has been compiled to find a TYPEDEF.  The EXE has been told to DISCONNECT all TYPEDEFS.  Therefore there is no TYPEDEF to be found.  If the stand-alone had been compiled to disconnect TYPEDEFS, then there would be no problem.

[Timmar]

I am uncomfortable making multiple copies of typedefs or disconnecting from them alltogether.

Your solution avoids this, so , no discomfort.

The normal method to include the VI's or controls in an application is to add them to the project and then insert it in the "Always Include" list of source files.

This workaround Requires me to add a handful of static references into my diagram that don't actualy do anything except trick the compiler into behaving as expected.

Not Ideal, but not terrible either

Tim L.