Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

type cast enum

Go to solution

Hello all,


can anybody tell me why the result is 0?


0 Kudos
Message 1 of 11

Hello Madottati,


Try co change the constant type to qame representation as the Enum.


If it U16 set U16.


In the Typecast help you can read 


"Effects of Mismatching the Sizes of X and Type

This function can generate unexpected data if x and type are not the same size. If x requires more bits of storage than type, this function uses the upper bytes of x and discards the remaining lower bytes. If x is of a smaller data type than type, this function moves the data in x to the upper bytes of type and fills the remaining bytes with zeros. For example, an 8-bit unsigned integer with value 1 type cast to a 16-bit unsigned integer results in a value of 256"


That's hat happen in your case.



Sabri JATLAOUI - Certified LabVIEW Architect - Certified LabVIEW Developer
Message 2 of 11
Accepted by topic author Madottati

@Madottati wrote:

Hello all,


can anybody tell me why the result is 0?


Please check with the Representation of your Constant Inpu(I32)t and Reference Input Typedef (U16)


Try to give both with U16 you will get exact output as your input number

Palanivel Thiruvenkadam,
0 Kudos
Message 3 of 11

Hi Madotti,


why don't you just wire the "10" value to your enum indicator? No TypeCast needed!


The typecast problem is due to different (underlying) datatypes: you try to cast an I32 value to an U16 enum. This will fail…

Best regards,
CLAD expired, using LV2011SP1 + LV2017 (+LV2019 sometimes) on Win7+cRIO
Kudos are welcome Smiley Wink

Message 4 of 11

Yah, I think Sabri has a good explanation here. The size of the  underlying data type is important. True, you can simply wire a virtually any numeric (dbl, uint) to the U16 enum and LV will make it work. But the result is probably 'brittle' with variations in LV (imho). Also, LV wines a bit by putting a red dot on the enum input indicated a type mismatch. The best approach is to match the size of the enum (U16) first (as Sabri says), then do the type cast using a constant created from the target enum. This works for me.

0 Kudos
Message 5 of 11

If you have 2018, not sure if in 2017, try Coerce to Type





0 Kudos
Message 6 of 11

I can confirm the technique to work in LV 6.1, 7.1, 8.51, 2016, 2017. (I've been coding for a while ... 🙂 ) I'm not sure about 2018.  I think the issue is the behavior of the "Type Cast" operator. If you don't mind a red dot here and there, just use the "To U16" operator (for an enum). But if you're using the "Type Cast" operator, you should match/coerce length before you type cast. If you do that, no red dots and no errors.


0 Kudos
Message 7 of 11

I mentioned a "new" function in 2018; I believe it has been around longer, just not exposed. The technique you showed works, I am just illustrating another one that does not have the pitfalls of Type Cast, do not worry about matching types.





 edit: tried back saving a 2017 version, check if it works


0 Kudos
Message 8 of 11

Yah, roger that. NP.



0 Kudos
Message 9 of 11

@pbisson wrote:

Also, LV wines a bit by putting a red dot on the enum input indicated a type mismatch. 

That's not whining, it is simply a conversion. That is not the same as a typecast and the typecast while working for what you want to do IF and only IF both data types have the same size, is in fact not the right function for this. The conversion is the right one, there just wasn't an official conversion node in earlier LabVIEW versions that could explicitly convert to an enum.

The red dot can indicate potential trouble if it happens for instance on large arrays. But if you place a conversion node to replace a red dot you win nothing, because the red dot simply is an implicit conversion. And the Typecast is in many ways a pretty costly function unlike the C counterpart which is often just a compile time indication to the compiler. The LabVIEW version does all kinds of memory size checks and padding and truncating of the operands to avoid crashes and inconsistent results, that it costs more CPU to perform than a simple conversion.


This picture gives you an example where the red dot would indicate a problem. The upper two functions are really equivalent, as the red dot simply indicates an implicit conversion function. As you can see the intermediate double array that is created, while only temporary needed will explode the memory use of the algorithm considerably unlike in the lowest where that array never needs to be created since the conversion is done explicitly inside the loop on the scalar.

code optimization.png

Rolf Kalbermatter
Averna BV
LabVIEW ArchitectLabVIEW ChampionLabVIEW Instructor
0 Kudos
Message 10 of 11