X4 Mpmaster - errors in post update log

[John Hill @ Poplar Hill Machine]

Hey Gang,

 

Updating our post which is a modified Mpmaster for X2. It's been updated for each new version of Mastercam.

 

I've manually added everything new in the X4 version to ours but when I run updatepost to verify all is good, I'm getting error messages about duplicate declarations. I've narrowed it down to this:

 

Line 335 of Mpmaster for X4 initializes these variables:

#--- Do not change the order of these variable initializations

cabs : 0

cinc : 0

cout_i : 0

indx_out : c9k #Rotation direction calculation

#---

 

Then on line 971, it formats these same variables:

fmt A 11 cabs #C axis position

fmt A 14 cinc #C axis position

fmt A 14 cout_i #C axis position

fmt A 4 indx_out #Index position

 

 

I've been told that although this "duplicating" was allowed in previous versions of Mastercam, it will not be in future and should be fixed.

 

Not knowing the logic behind it, I don't know to go about fixing it.

 

Any help greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks,

 

John

[Bryan Johnson]

There is nothing wrong with what you are showing.

 

What does the error log have in it?

[John Hill @ Poplar Hill Machine]

The log lists the lines mentioned above and states they are duplicate declarations. According to my VAR, this *should* be corrected because future versions of Mastercam won't allow it.

 

The post seems to be working so far, I just don't know what issues it may cause later.

[Bryan Johnson]

my understanding is that to format a variable, is not considered a duplication.

 

I see many examples of this in X4 posts, and am not getting any error in the log.

 

I would search the post file for any other occurrences of the of those variables being “initialized”.

[Guest]

John,

 

You have originally just sent me the error log file.

 

 

Send me a z2g and we can get this straightened for you.

[John Hill @ Poplar Hill Machine]

Ok, thanks guys.

[Jim Evans from CNC Software]

The line being reported to have the duplicate is the second occurrence. You need to search your post for other occurrences of the same variable to find the problem and then determine which one is correct.