How many one's!

[Peter Nachtwey 15]

Alaric's example is not recusive. It is just a simple loop. There are bit counting algorithms that don't require loops. I would lean toward them now that I have 32 bit and 64 bit computers available. They are more deterministic as far as the time they take. That isn't a big issue with PLCs but in what I do it is nice to know exactly how long a sequence of code takes. We literally count nanoseconds. Back in the dark ages I used look up tables so I could count the bits a byte at a time. Bubba shouldn't need to know how it works. He only needs to know that it works. Bubba shouldn't have to play with this code. .

[Datman 0]

I decided to do this too, does make the program readable as everyone says. It certainly looks like it will run fast enough which was my main concern. So I agree with you Alaric, I think ill leave it as is, and be happy in the knowledge that its pretty foolproof!

[TConnolly 13]

That is inversely proportional to the ingenuity of your fools.

[pabeader 0]

How about a replacement for the FBC instruction? For-Next loop out in a subroutine? Pass ParaMeters?

[BobLfoot 301]

Did you check out the code I wrote as part of post #14 of this thread?

[pabeader 0]

Yepper Looks good as far as it goes. I was thinking a little more ambitiously. A complete replacement for FBC. Or at least the main function of comparing a PILE of bit to another PILE of bits and flagging the differences in a Third pile of bits.

[BobLfoot 301]

I'll let someone else advance it to the next level.