02-03-2023 08:03 AM - edited 02-03-2023 08:04 AM
Oh boy. Well thank you for giving some help on finding this. Should I presume that NIPM is the only way to get this patch? What about offline machines? Do I need to be going and grabbing the NIPM package from the cached location? I'm finding lots of disappointing cracks in NI's web and NIPM experience this morning.
Unofficial Forum Rules and Guidelines
Get going with G! - LabVIEW Wiki.
16 Part Blog on Automotive CAN bus. - Hooovahh - LabVIEW Overlord
02-03-2023 08:06 AM
To my knowledge NIPM is the only way to get this patch, so yeah, more pain in grabbing the package from the cache. I agree that it's disappointing.
02-03-2023 08:09 AM
Looks like that. And, by the way, I have this patch installed (according to NIPM), but the "clear compiled object cache" bug and icons bug are both present.
02-09-2023 12:57 PM - edited 02-09-2023 01:21 PM
OK, I used workaround for that:
After the manual cleaning LabVIEW correctly shows empty cache at first start. But this is somehwat unhandy I would say.
EDIT: one more cache found in \Program Files\National Instruments\LabVIEW 2022\VIObjCache
02-11-2023 11:45 AM
@D_mitriy wrote:
EDIT: one more cache found in \Program Files\National Instruments\LabVIEW 2022\VIObjCache
Not sure why you would ever want to touch that, because it is probably quite static and just the compiled code of the system VIs.
02-14-2023 07:33 AM
Well, it works and does the job without the bad consequences - why not?
02-14-2023 02:37 PM - edited 02-14-2023 02:38 PM
Clearing the compiled cache of the LabVIEW system has the "bad" consequence that every system VI needs to be recompiled, making the next loading probably quite slow. 😄
(depending on your settings, it might even compile with fewer optimizations)
02-15-2023 02:13 AM
I see the point. Probably I should try to do that once again with the compiler optimizations maxed out 🙂
02-15-2023 10:17 AM
@D_mitriy wrote:
I see the point. Probably I should try to do that once again with the compiler optimizations maxed out 🙂
I think I read somewhere that "over-optimization" might lead to unexpected results in certain situations, and it was probably best to use "standard" optimizations. But that discussion was a LONG time ago and the situation may have changed with the advance of optimization techniques.