Formatting Bug (?)

[dan_u]

LV 2012 SP1.

I have a SGL numeric control, formatted as SI notation, 6 significant digits.

When I enter 1n (nano) it displays 999.99900p. I know 1n can't be represented excatly as SGL number, the closest value is 999.9999717...p

With 6 significant digits this should still show as 1n.

So this looks like a bug to me. Btw, the same happens with 1E (Exa), which displays as 999.99900P (Peta).

Any thoughts? Same in later LV versions?

[GerdW]

Hi dan,

yes, I can confirm the same behaviour with LV2014SP1.

With 6 significant digits I get the same result as in your image. with >=8 significant digits the result looks ok "999.9999717p"…

[Intaris]

I can also confirm that LV 2015 has not changed the behaviour.

[dan_u]

Thanks for the confirmation. I usually set 6 significant digits for SGL numbers since this is about the precision of SGL numbers.

I was surprised to suddenly see 8 digits (too wide for the control since the control size was adapted to 6 digits).

So this IS a bug.

[dan_u]

Anybody from NI? Can we get a CAR?

[Sam_Sharp]

If you want a CAR, I suggest you raise a support ticket with NI and then post the number you get from them here. NI employees don't necessarily always see forum threads and raise CARs from - better to raise it yourself (but post it here for others that might be interested in the resolution).

[dan_u · Accepted solution]

CAR 561864.

[dan_u]

Just for completeness: 1n displays fine in automatic or scientific formatting with 6 significant digits. It shows correctly as 1E-9. The bug only appears in SI formatting.