02-17-2017 02:41 AM
Hi, I am not certain that I fully understand the concept called ' Sub VI overhead'. I need to know more about this 'overhead' to learn more. Help me!
02-17-2017 02:51 AM
02-17-2017 03:02 AM
Hi GerdW,
I did. But I cannot understand the term 'overhead'. Glad to have conversation with you again.!!
02-17-2017 03:12 AM
02-17-2017 03:15 AM
Hi GerdW,
According to the link you pasted, Can I take that term ' Overhead' as Excessive execution time for sub VI than Calling VI?
02-17-2017 03:17 AM
Hi dhans,
yes, LabVIEW (might) needs to handle memory allocations, parameter forwarding, etc. when calling a subVI - as is mentioned in the LabVIEW help.
You can reduce this overhead by the menthods also mentioned in the LabVIEW help…
02-17-2017 03:26 AM
Hi, GerdW
Yes. I did read all of them. Now only clearly understand! Thank you!!!
02-17-2017 05:23 AM
Worth noting is that this overhead is usually negligable. Only in very tight loops is it worth using Inline function to gain that last 0,01% performance.
Did you ask for a specific program issue or just for knowledge?
/Y
02-17-2017 05:35 AM
Hi, Yamaeda,
Just for knowledge. I haven't encountered any situation but knowing these things will help me in future. That's why.
02-17-2017 07:55 AM
I agree with the others. The majority of our reuse library is inlined because it is code that is usually called often, and is code we don't expect to debug or edit (debugging has to be off for inlining). And automatic error handlers shouldn't be happening for small reuse functions either, they should just return the error and have the calling code handle it.
That being said I've never seen an issue with performance, where inlining a VI was the solution. It might help, but probably not enough to matter.
Unofficial Forum Rules and Guidelines
Get going with G! - LabVIEW Wiki.
16 Part Blog on Automotive CAN bus. - Hooovahh - LabVIEW Overlord