Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] gr_sync_block question

[Nowlan, Sean]

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