[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] gr_sync_block question
From: |
Nowlan, Sean |
Subject: |
Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] gr_sync_block question |
Date: |
Mon, 2 Apr 2012 14:24:43 +0000 |
Thanks for clearing that up. That's what I surmised after poking around
gr_block_executor; the problem turned out to be a mistake in the work function
of a data source I put together.
-----Original Message-----
From: address@hidden [mailto:address@hidden On Behalf Of Johnathan Corgan
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 1:28 PM
To: Tom Rondeau
Cc: address@hidden
Subject: Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] gr_sync_block question
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 07:52, Tom Rondeau <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Josh Blum <address@hidden> wrote:
>> On 03/30/2012 11:23 AM, Nowlan, Sean wrote:
>>> Do objects that extend gr_sync_block *require* that their work
>>> function *always* returns as many items as the scheduler asked in
>>> noutput_items, except for the case when a block may be completely
>>> finished producing items?
>>
>> Returning 0 or -1 will tell the block executor code to stop.
>>
>> -Josh
>
> Just to clarify, a block can legitimately return 0; it just means that
> it didn't produce any output, but it will try again.
To clarify even further--a *source* block that returns 0 samples will be
treated as done, for other blocks it is ok.
Johnathan
_______________________________________________
Discuss-gnuradio mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] gr_sync_block question,
Nowlan, Sean <=