CPT Instruction

[Prayder]

Needing help with this, keep getting an error

((((((((((((((((C5[20].ACC+C5[19].ACC)+C5[18].ACC)+C5[17].ACC)+C5[16].ACC)+C5[15].ACC)+C5[13].ACC)+C5[1].ACC)+C5[2].ACC)+C5[3].ACC)C5[4].ACC)+C5[5].ACC)+C5[6].ACC)+C5[7].ACC)C5[8].ACC)+C5[9].ACC)+C5[10].ACC)+C5[11].ACC

When I try to verify the rung I get

Error: Rung 453, CPT, Operand 1: Invalid expression or tag.

 

[Bob O]

I just did something similar yesterday but didn't include the ()

 

[GaryS]

Looks to me like you forgot the closed braced on the end you have it every where else

 

[labeledas]

((((((((((((((((C5[20].ACC+C5[19].ACC)+C5[18].ACC)+C5[17].ACC)+C5[16].ACC)+C5[15].ACC)+C5[13].ACC)+C5[1].ACC)+C5[2].ACC)+C5[3].ACC)+C5[4].ACC)+C5[5].ACC)+C5[6].ACC)+C5[7].ACC)+C5[8].ACC)+C5[9].ACC)+C5[10].ACC)+C5[11].ACC

missing a couple of + signs or whatever operand you wanted

I use http://www.balancebraces.com/index.php color codes it

 

[Bob O]

C5[20].ACC+C5[19].ACC+C5[18].ACC+C5[17].ACC+C5[16].ACC+C5[15].ACC+C5[13].ACC+C5[1].ACC+C5[2].ACC+C5[3].ACC+C5[4].ACC+C5[5].ACC+C5[6].ACC+C5[7].ACC+C5[8].ACC+C5[9].ACC+C5[10].ACC+C5[11].ACC

Try this.
Edit...Didn't notice the missing +

 

[labeledas]

yeah I guess since it's all addition you don't need parentheses

 

[Prayder]

got it working once I added the additional + signs. thx guys..

 

[Steve Bailey]

Since you have the correct number of left and right parentheses, I expect the error is that there is a limit to how many parenthesis pairs the system supports.

 

[GaryS]

I would do the function in a loop much easier to follow less chance for errors when programming

 

[labeledas]

I would do the function in a loop much easier to follow less chance for errors when programming

I would consider doing it that way too. when your CPT get huge like this they are harder to follow than a loop, especially a simple addition like this

 

[daba]

I'd be wary of suggesting a loop to perform this sum, has no-one else noticed that C5[12] and C5[14] acc. values are missing....

Unless, of course, that's just another two mistakes to add to the missing + signs, and the fact you don't need parentheses at all...

 

[Mispeld]

FAL Musings

has no-one else noticed that C5[12] and C5[14] acc. values are missing

Were it not for this, a FAL would be convenient:



Skipping elements is still workable, but now more ugly:



EDIT: If you were really going to do this, the EQU tests would be for 10 and 12 to skip accumulators 12 and 14.

 

[daba]

Were it not for this, a FAL would be convenient:

View attachment 44844

Skipping elements is still workable, but now more ugly:

View attachment 44845

EDIT: If you were really going to do this, the EQU tests would be for 10 and 12 to skip accumulators 12 and 14.

Instead of the tests, you could just let the FAL do its job, then SUB the counter accumulators you didn't want.

I suspect that it would execute faster than the CPT solution, even without the superfluous parentheses.

If I get the time and the inclination I would test it

 

[nehpets]

Does'nt say what processor is being used, but if structured text is available,

For index := 0 to 20 do;
total := total + c5[index].acc;
end_for;

It's what it does best number crunching.

Also it's easy to subtract any counter accumulators not required.

Steve

 

[daba]

Does'nt say what processor is being used, but if structured text is available,

For index := 0 to 20 do;
total := total + c5[index].acc;
end_for;

It's what it does best number crunching.

Steve

Shouldn't that be
For index := 1 to 20 do;
total := total + c5[index].acc;
end_for;
total := total - c5[12].acc;
total := total - c5[14].acc;


Anyway, I'm guessing it's Logix5000 because of the square bracketed array index...

If so, I might be tempted to create an AOI that contains a string of ADD instructions, which I am certain would give the fastest execution.