We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? # to your account
If two reactor banks are triggered by the same reaction, the bank that is listed as first effect, will only get a single bank member triggered.
This is an example:
target C; reactor Hello { input I:int; reaction(I) {= printf("Hello\n"); =} } reactor World { input I:int; reaction(I) {= printf("World\n"); =} } main reactor { hellos = new[3] Hello() worlds = new[3] World() reaction(startup) -> hellos.I, worlds.I {= for(int i = 0; i < hellos_width; i++) { lf_set(hellos[i].I, true); } for(int i = 0; i < worlds_width; i++) { lf_set(worlds[i].I, true); } =} }
The output is:
World World World Hello
Swapping the order of the effects will output 3 x Hello, 1 x World. Splitting the reaction into two, one for each bank, yields the correct behavior.
Hello
World
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Fixes Reactions do not consistently trigger banks #1278
2887a94
PR #1289 fixes this. The problem was a simple indexing issue that failed to take into account the width of the first bank.
Sorry, something went wrong.
Unfortunately, my fix does not work. Reopening this issue and converting the PR #1289 to a draft.
Closed via #1289.
No branches or pull requests
If two reactor banks are triggered by the same reaction, the bank that is listed as first effect, will only get a single bank member triggered.
This is an example:
The output is:
Swapping the order of the effects will output 3 x
Hello
, 1 xWorld
.Splitting the reaction into two, one for each bank, yields the correct behavior.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: