Merge lp:~mdavidsaver/epics-base/rec-init into lp:~epics-core/epics-base/3.14
Proposed by
mdavidsaver
Status: | Merged | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Merge reported by: | Andrew Johnson | ||||
Merged at revision: | not available | ||||
Proposed branch: | lp:~mdavidsaver/epics-base/rec-init | ||||
Merge into: | lp:~epics-core/epics-base/3.14 | ||||
Diff against target: |
239 lines (+56/-4) 15 files modified
src/rec/aSubRecord.c (+3/-0) src/rec/aiRecord.c (+4/-0) src/rec/aoRecord.c (+5/-0) src/rec/biRecord.c (+3/-0) src/rec/boRecord.c (+5/-0) src/rec/calcoutRecord.c (+5/-0) src/rec/longinRecord.c (+3/-0) src/rec/longoutRecord.c (+3/-0) src/rec/mbbiDirectRecord.c (+3/-0) src/rec/mbbiRecord.c (+3/-0) src/rec/mbboDirectRecord.c (+4/-0) src/rec/mbboRecord.c (+4/-0) src/rec/stringinRecord.c (+4/-2) src/rec/stringoutRecord.c (+4/-2) src/rec/subRecord.c (+3/-0) |
||||
To merge this branch: | bzr merge lp:~mdavidsaver/epics-base/rec-init | ||||
Related bugs: |
|
Reviewer | Review Type | Date Requested | Status |
---|---|---|---|
Andrew Johnson | Approve | ||
EPICS Core Developers | Pending | ||
Review via email: mp+22819@code.launchpad.net |
Commit message
Correctly initialize various fields used to detect changes in other fields (MLST, OVAL, LALM, ...)
Currently this are zero. This is a problem if the fields they are compared against are initialized (in init_record) to a non-zero value.
Description of the change
Correctly initialize various fields used to detect changes in other fields (MLST, OVAL, LALM, ...)
Currently this are zero. This is a problem if the fields they are compared against are initialized (in init_record) to a non-zero value.
Fields effected
in many recordtypes
MLST -> VAL
ALST -> VAL
LALM -> VAL
ORAW -> RVAL
ORBV -> RBV
in calcout
POVL -> OVAL
in aSub
ONAM -> SNAM
To post a comment you must log in.
Your stringin/stringout changes contain this:
strncpy( prec->oval, prec->val, sizeof( prec->val) );
Please use sizeof(prec->oval) instead, since that's the destination of the string copy. It would be a bug if the sizes of the two fields are ever different, but this is more robust if that does happen.
Otherwise I think this looks good.