Ignore compiler errors in Rslogix5000?

[Ghassan hijazi]

is there any way to ignore a rung that has an error in it, and let the program run in Rslogix5000?

 

[Paullys50]

Nope, maybe an exception for shorted branches.

 

[Ghassan hijazi]

I would think that they would have thought of a way to comment out an error just like other programming languages.

 

[bernie_carlton]

I would think that they would have thought of a way to comment out an error just like other programming languages.

It's called correcting or deleting the rung.

 

[Ghassan hijazi]

what if I don't want to correct or delete the rung?.... I just want the compiler to skip the rung entirely.

 

[Ken Roach]

Structured Text lines can be "commented out" in RSLogix 5000, but there is no "ignore" or "comment" mechanism in the RLL or FBD interpreters in ControlLogix.

 

[bernie_carlton]

OK, a little less frivilous of an answer. You wish to somehow preserve the essence of the bad rung while removing it from consideration of the compiler.

Create an empty rung with just a NOP at the end either above or below the offending rung.

Double click on the rung number of the bad rung. The structure of the rung in ASCII appears in a window above. Highlight and copy that ASCII description of the rung.

Create a rung comment for the NOP rung and paste the ASCII description of the bad rung.

Finally delete the bad rung.

The program should now compile. You have a copy of the bad rung in the rung comments of the new NOP rung. Assuming that you feel safe you can download this copy to the PLC.

But I don't believe that rung comments are downloaded to the processor so you will have to carefully preserve the PC .ACD file.

When it comes time to recreate the offending rung open the NOP rung's comments. Highlight and copy the comment. Create a new empty rung. Double-click on the rung number to open the before mentioned window (which is empty at the moment) and paste in the comment. On pressing ENTER the original rung is recreated.

 

[Donnchadh]

Hi

Your question is not really valid in a plc. Yes in c# or c++ etc but not in any plc I have ever worked on.

You can ask the question again but I think you will get the same answer

Donnchadh

 

[JeffKiper]

Bernie's advice is the way I habe seen some guys do it as a permanent place holder. I have created structured text files just to hold documentation and edit it all out

 

[rdrast]

Seriously, what is the error with the rung? If it is an undefined tag, define a tag, even a placeholder. If it is just improper logic, get rid of it.


If such a dubious 'feature' ever existed, and I saw any equipment coming in from an OEM exploiting it, I would be returning the equipment immediately and taking the OEM off of our approved list.

 

[ELake20]

rdrast: OEMs do this all the time. I have received machines where they have double coiled a single 'Alarm' bit hundreds of times, instead of defining separate bits. Garbage. That and 'always off' bits scattered everywhere to comment out a regurgitated project they used as a template. This is why companies need an internal standards document for controls.

For commenting out, I like using bits/bytes/words with a name something like 'ToDo'

This way I can essentially comment out bunk rungs, compile do some testing etc and later on xref 'ToDo' and pick up where I left off.

 

[rdrast]

what if I don't want to correct or delete the rung?.... I just want the compiler to skip the rung entirely.

Then you should be looking at another platform rather then a PLC/PAC.