FPGA Boolean in Cluster does not un-Latch. Normal?

[BradNC]

Hello--

When executed on the FPGA target, I notice that Boolean Controls within a Cluster do not follow the normal Latching behavior.  I do see normal behavior with the same VI when executed on the Dev. Computer.  Is this behavior by design, or am I missing something?

The snapshot below is the result of setting all Boolean Controls to 'True', and executing on FPGA and on PC:

[Kareem_W.]

Hi,

Let me recreate this code on my system and I will get back with you shortly.

Regards,

[BradNC]

Ahhhh....sorry I forgot to include the code earlier.

The point of having 3 booleans per set was to test the 3 latching actions.

[Kareem_W.]

I've recreated the issue here. While I don't currently have a root cause, I suspect that it has something to do with the fact that the FPGA code is running a lot faster than the code in the standard LV environment. Instead of running directly on the FPGA and viewing the results, try creating a host VI and using a FIFO to transfer the data. This may have an impact on the latch behavior that we are seeing.

Regards,

[BradNC]

Interesting.  I'm not quite sure what test you are describing.  Do you mean have the Cluster on the Host, reading into a FIFO one Boolean at a time?

In any case, I've worked up a couple of more examples that may shed a little more light on things.

1) The first attachment is the VI given above but with mSec delays in the loop.  This gave the same results.

2) The second attachment is a simplified version of the FPGA application where I first noticed the problem.  I don't know if this provides any new information, but is included in case it is helpful.

[Kareem_W.]

This is indeed odd behavior. Let look into this further and get back with you.

Regards,

[BradNC]

Thanks for taking some time for this Kareem.  Let me know if there's any more info I can provide.

[Kareem_W.]

bcro,

Sorry for the amount of time it's taken for me to research this issue. It looks like this is a bug in the code, so I am going to submit a CAR (Corrective Action Report) to SW R&D to bring this to their attention. If there is a workaround provided by R&D, I will post it here.

Regards,