Experimental Physics and
Industrial Control System

Eric Norum <[email protected]> · Thu, 19 Aug 2010 19:13:43 -0700

The 1<<N form seems reasonable, but I'm not 100% that the bitXX names are a good idea.   My concern stems from the fact that some architectures number bits from the right (which is what I presume this patch does) while others number them from the left.  Thus 'bit14' is somewhat ambiguous.

On Aug 19, 2010, at 6:31 PM, Angus Gratton wrote:

> Hi everyone,
> 
> I have a trivial patch for asyn 4-13-1, I thought I'd send it to the
> list for comment as well as to Mark directly.
> 
> I've been setting up a lot single binary inputs and outputs, so making
> masks like this:
> 
> field(OUT,"@asynMask( xvme260-1 0 0x4000 )")
> 
> and I was thinking it'd be nice to be able to use a 1<<x or a BITx
> notation for single bit values. Most of the cards I'm using have a
> direct relationship between bit number and channel number, and it's nice
> to save the reader from having to do it in their head.
> 
> So my tiny patch just adds support for optionally specifying single bit
> values, in masks, as follows:
> 
> field(OUT,"@asynMask( xvme260-1 0 bit14 )")
> 
> The patch adds a mention in the documentation as well, although I
> haven't added any test cases.
> 
> Hope this is of some use,
> 
> - Angus
> 
> 
> <asynMaskbitValues.patch>

-- 
Eric Norum
[email protected]

Experimental Physics and Industrial Control System

Experimental Physics and
Industrial Control System