Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Buffer re-implemented #4

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

rohanbhargava11
Copy link

The buffer is re-implemented and thus it solves the problem of laser not publishing data after sometime.

This is in response to the following question.

http://answers.ros.org/question/11074/sick-lms-100-topic-stops-publishing-measurements/#60483

@konradb3
Copy link
Owner

i will test it with our lms100 at 6 may.
meanwhile you could clean the code a little, there is a lot of commented code and it is constantly spamming on console.

@rohanbhargava11
Copy link
Author

I will clean the code as soon as possible.

@riemervdzee
Copy link

Why exactly are most buffers increased? I understand the increase for the function getData, but the other changes are quite useless (the new sizes ain't used for the read command. the write command hardly takes up space), and uses up stack-space (I already think they are way too high anyway). Most of the time, the stack is quite cached in the cpu L1 cache, so high processing is guaranteed. But large arrays prevent such caching.

Edit: I also kinda written a "fix", although it doesn't resize like the vector implementation does (which is imho better aye). I just had this commit laying around already.. (I recently started pushing them to github), if anyone is interested riemervdzee@ad6c9b4

@rohanbhargava11
Copy link
Author

You are right. I had completely forgot that I had increased the buffer size in other functions as well. I think I was trying to debug something and had increased the buffer size. I will get the buffer back to 100 , test the code and will update it as well.

Thanks for pointing it out.Cheers

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants