Skip to Content

Register Login

Industry Online Support

Technical Forum

Navigation

Access with ambiguous address

Created by: Darius at: 12/19/2011 10:42 AM (12 Replies)

Rating (1)

Thanks 4

Result pages:: |; 1 | 2; |

13 Entries

Entries per page: 10 | all

12/19/2011 10:42 AM	Rate (0)
Darius Platinum Expert Joined: 9/28/2005 Last visit: 12/10/2024 Posts: 2957 Rating: (243)	Hello, I've noticed strange thing in V11. For example I have DB10 and it has 16 tags with type BOOL. So if I access this DB with instruction like: [code]L DB10.DBW0[/code] Then I have warning at compile time like "access to specified tag with ambiguous address". I understand why I get this message, but is there any possibility to turn of this kind of warning ?
	Best regards, Darius
Suggestion To thank Quote Answer

12/19/2011 11:50 AM	Rate (0)
Ganes10 Platinum Member Joined: 8/31/2010 Last visit: 1/9/2025 Posts: 1523 Rating: (230)	Darius Hello, I've noticed strange thing in V11. For example I have DB10 and it has 16 tags with type BOOL. So if I access this DB with instruction like: L DB10.DBW0 Then I have warning at compile time like "access to specified tag with ambiguous address". I understand why I get this message, but is there any possibility to turn of this kind of warning ? Hello Darius, True and theexplanationagainst this warning is as follows. Help on message 604:4514 Description There are at least 2 tags with identical addresses assigned to a CPU. Resolution Change one of the addresses so that the addresses are unique.
	Like it? Rate it!
Suggestion To thank Quote Answer

12/19/2011 12:32 PM	Rate (0)
0_Einstein Diamond Expert Joined: 7/7/2010 Last visit: 1/13/2025 Posts: 15531 Rating: (2464)	Darius Hello, I've noticed strange thing in V11. For example I have DB10 and it has 16 tags with type BOOL. So if I access this DB with instruction like: L DB10.DBW0 Then I have warning at compile time like "access to specified tag with ambiguous address". I understand why I get this message, but is there any possibility to turn of this kind of warning ? Up to SP1 Update 2, no the warning cannot be turned off. I like it and now know to ignore it for the intentional ambiguous addressing I use, similar to your own approach.
	science guy
Suggestion To thank Quote Answer

12/19/2011 12:46 PM	Rate (0)
Darius Platinum Expert Joined: 9/28/2005 Last visit: 12/10/2024 Posts: 2957 Rating: (243)	Ganes10 True and theexplanationagainst this warning is as follows. Help on message 604:4514 Description There are at least 2 tags with identical addresses assigned to a CPU. Resolution Change one of the addresses so that the addresses are unique. Yes, but this message is not so very true . There is no 2 tags with identical address, it's just one tag which references to address which is not defined in symbolic form. For me its a little bit annoying. This warning I mean.
	Best regards, Darius
Suggestion To thank Quote Answer

12/19/2011 1:35 PM	Rate (0)
Ganes10 Platinum Member Joined: 8/31/2010 Last visit: 1/9/2025 Posts: 1523 Rating: (230)	Darius Yes, but this message is not so very true . There is no 2 tags with identical address, it's just one tag which references to address which is not defined in symbolic form. For me its a little bit annoying. This warning I mean. Helo Darius, Yes, let's hope this use case is considered in development for next version. If guys in forum have some solution for this let's discuss here.
	Like it? Rate it!
Suggestion To thank Quote Answer
This contribution was helpful to 1 thankful Users Darius

12/20/2011 4:40 PM	Rate (1)
Robster Gold Expert Joined: 5/28/2008 Last visit: 10/23/2024 Posts: 1343 Rating: (141)	You can ignore the warning or try it this way: http://support.automation.siemens.com/WW/view/en/57132240

Suggestion To thank Quote Answer
This contribution was helpful to 1 thankful Users Darius

12/21/2011 7:45 AM	Rate (0)
Darius Platinum Expert Joined: 9/28/2005 Last visit: 12/10/2024 Posts: 2957 Rating: (243)	Hi, Thanks for the link. Not exactly what I need, but still... In my case it's not overlaping, its accessing bigged memory area, for example, than defined by symbols. So its a little bit different thing.And I'm using S7-300 which DBs has no S7-300/S7-400 compatibility mode as S7-1200. All blocks are created in this mode by default. I've created support request on this issue and they are looking into this.
	Best regards, Darius
Suggestion To thank Quote Answer

9/18/2012 11:32 AM	Rate (0)
ThaKibosh Bronze Member Joined: 5/31/2011 Last visit: 1/9/2025 Posts: 190 Rating: (31)	I'm with Darius on this one. When you create faceplates, for example a motor function block in the PLC and faceplates on the SCADA or HMI panel, you don't want to connect a lot off tags. To reduce this, you put all different bits inside a DWORD or other form and call this. So at the start of the programm you would call this DWORD and transfer it to a local temporary structure where all bits are declared. For example: dwOS = DWORD tempOS = STRUCT TempOS.Start = BOOL TempOS.Stop = BOOL TempOS.... = BOOL Then L dwOS T LD0 This used to be perfect programming in Step 7 and we use it a lot. Now I get a warning in TIA. I understand TIA is going for the symbolic way, but we do need a solution for this. I don't want warnings all the time when compiling and something is correctly programmed. Because then, I will not notice a warning when there is actually one. We are still PLC Programmers, the basic bits, bytes, adressing etc... Ok for symbolic but don't take away our direct access! And if used correctly, no warnings needed. It's just the power of Step 7, using complicated Array's, structures etc, and then accessing them directly or indirect from inside the program. Above is just my opinion about it. PS: For the link about S7-1200, I don't like it because I need to use functions to do something that should be basic inside a PLC like adressing.

Suggestion To thank Quote Answer
This contribution was helpful to 1 thankful Users Fault44

9/18/2012 2:41 PM	Rate (0)
0_Einstein Diamond Expert Joined: 7/7/2010 Last visit: 1/13/2025 Posts: 15531 Rating: (2464)	ThaKibosh I'm with Darius on this one. When you create faceplates, for example a motor function block in the PLC and faceplates on the SCADA or HMI panel, you don't want to connect a lot off tags. To reduce this, you put all different bits inside a DWORD or other form and call this. So at the start of the programm you would call this DWORD and transfer it to a local temporary structure where all bits are declared. For example: dwOS = DWORD tempOS = STRUCT TempOS.Start = BOOL TempOS.Stop = BOOL TempOS.... = BOOL Then L dwOS T LD0 This used to be perfect programming in Step 7 and we use it a lot. Now I get a warning in TIA. I understand TIA is going for the symbolic way, but we do need a solution for this. I don't want warnings all the time when compiling and something is correctly programmed. Because then, I will not notice a warning when there is actually one. We are still PLC Programmers, the basic bits, bytes, adressing etc... Ok for symbolic but don't take away our direct access! And if used correctly, no warnings needed. It's just the power of Step 7, using complicated Array's, structures etc, and then accessing them directly or indirect from inside the program. Above is just my opinion about it. PS: For the link about S7-1200, I don't like it because I need to use functions to do something that should be basic inside a PLC like adressing. The TIA Portal software has a method to handle those hard-coded memory storage locations since that method of programming is so 1990's. Createcustom PLC datatypes. It will allow for plenty of abstraction and remove the need for direct memory access in nearly all situations. If you need to pass a bunch of data in a word, you are really passing information. One tag can contain the structure for all that data and the decoding is automatic. For example, say you have some faceplate for a motor. plc datatype -> motor_faceplate mtr_fp : structure on_pb : bool; off_pb : bool; status : byte; {off, starting, running, stopping, warning, faulted} speed_cmd_PC : byte; {percent -100 .. 100} actual_speed : Int; {user units, m/sec, rpm} ... as needed for your faceplate -- then you create your db tag as a "motor_faceplate", let's call it infeed_conv_mtr1. You can then pass the faceplate to your multi-instance FB easily enough with just "infeed_conv_mtr1" and then it can handle all the on/off/speed stuff. Thinking the other way will make your code less universal and more difficult to port between systems, hence those warnings. As an FYI, I have around 40 of those messages every time I compile / rebuild all because sometimes it is the best way to handle certain situations. I did start out with a few hundred before creating a more tag-based program. I can drag those pieces of code into new projects with virtually no changes and they just work. I have to be very careful with the code that generates the warnings, so I am glad they are there.
	science guy
Suggestion To thank Quote Answer

9/18/2012 5:14 PM	Rate (0)
ThaKibosh Bronze Member Joined: 5/31/2011 Last visit: 1/9/2025 Posts: 190 Rating: (31)	Dear huggy I'm not sure if I follow you completely so here it is like I think you suggested: So you can create in the PLC a "PLC Data type" with all control, status bits etc, then the same structure into the HMI panel? I know this works fine, but if I'm correct you can't drag / drop the complete tags inside the tag table of the HMI Panel. So you need to manually link the HMI tags to the correct PLC starting adress. Dragging dropping complete structures from a datatype does not work if I'm correct. And I'm a lazy programmer, don't like adding stuff manually. Our faceplates / Functionblocks from Step 7 are also compatible with WinCC v7, here we just compile to WinCC and WinCC itself creates the tags inside WinCC with the attributes of the Function Block.(It's the PCS7 way of working but then in Step 7). I don't know if this is possible in TIA? In PCS7 licensing is done with PO's but in the normal WinCC by Powertags. If I would split up every single bit, and link it this way, each bit wil be a powertag. Licensing price will go up massively, so I want to keep them inside words or dwords. So I guess there are these choices then: - Create two seperate Data types; one for PLC and One for HMI but mannually link all tags. - The 1990's way, you can drag / drop in TIA the adresses for the HMI. But get warnings while compiling. Or did I miss something?

Suggestion To thank Quote Answer

|

Share this page:

Share this page on...

Follow us on