Branch nesting question

[shawn_75]

Yes, there is a difference. Using a ML1100 I needed to do three concatenate (ACN) instructions in order. I tried using parallel branching but it would not compile. Nested the three and it compiled and worked in the proper order.

Shawn

 

[TConnolly]

Thats strange.

I just tried

SOR BST ACN ST10:0 ST10:1 ST10:2 NXB ACN ST10:2 ST10:3 ST10:4 NXB ACN ST10:4 ST10:5 ST10:6 BND EOR

for a ML1100 and it worked just fine. Whats the exact rung you tried?

 

[shawn_75]

Hmmm, I'll have to check tomorrow at work. I'll post what I find.

Shawn

 

[shawn_75]

I think I figured out how I came to that conclusion. I started with this:

XIC B3:0/0 BST ACN ST9:1 ST9:2 ST9:3 NXB ACN ST9:3 ST9:4 ST9:5 NXB ACN ST9:5 ST9:6 ST9:7 BND OTL B3:1/0

It would not compile. When I clicked on the error message in the popup tab at the bottom it highlighted the branches. This led me to believe that the branching technique was wrong so I changed to this:

XIC B3:0/0 BST ACN ST9:1 ST9:2 ST9:3 NXB BST ACN ST9:3 ST9:4 ST9:5 NXB ACN ST9:5 ST9:6 ST9:7 BND BND OTL B3:1/0

Still errors when compiling. My final rung looked like this:

XIC B3:0/0 BST ACN ST9:1 ST9:2 ST9:3 NXB BST ACN ST9:3 ST9:4 ST9:5 NXB BST ACN ST9:5 ST9:6 ST9:7 NXB OTL B3:1/0 BND BND BND

I never changed from nested to parallel and from all the time I spent looking at the program I had convinced myself (incorrectly) that they needed to be nested.

 

[harish72]

Check the attached picture taken from the user manual....

 

[rdrast]

Check the attached picture taken from the user manual....

Aside from responding to a 4 year old post that was answered, you pulled a manual page for SFC, which is not LAD. They operate under different rules.