Discusión:Conductividad eléctrica

"<?xml version=""1.0"" encoding=""UTF-8""?>" "<rss version=""2.0"" xmlns:dc=""http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"">" <channel> <language>en-us</language> <title>MathWorks - Bug Reports</title> <link>https://www.mathworks.com/support/bugreports/</link> <description>The most recent published and/or updated Bug Reports for R2010a (): all products</description> <item> <title>Simulink Coder - Incorrect Code Generation: Incorrect fixed-point information is generated in C-API file for root-level outputs</title> "<description>The C-API file (model_capi.c) generated by the code generator may contain incorrect fixed-point information for root-level outputs present in rtwCAPI_Signals structure. Instead of the actual number, the fxpIndex (fixed-point index) is incorrectly assigned with zero. This indicates wrongly that the signal does not have fixed-point information.This bug exists in the following release(s): R2023a, R2023a, R2022b, R2022b, R2022a, R2022a, R2021b, R2021b, R2021a, R2021a, R2020b, R2020b, R2020a, R2020a, R2019b, R2019b, R2019a, R2019a, R2018b, R2018b, R2018a, R2018a, R2017b, R2017b, R2017a, R2017a, R2016b, R2016b, R2016a, R2016a, R2015b, R2015b, R2015aSP1, R2015aSP1, R2015a, R2015a, R2014b, R2014b, R2014a, R2014a, R2013b, R2013b, R2013a, R2013a, R2012b, R2012b, R2012a, R2012a, R2011b, R2011b, R2011a, R2011a, R2010bSP2, R2010bSP1, R2010b, R2010a, R2009bSP1, R2009b, R2009a, R2008b, R2008a, R2007b, R2007a, R2006b, R2006a, R14SP3, R14SP2, R14SP1, R13SP2, R13SP1 This bug has a workaround <a href='/downloads/web_downloads/agent_check?mode=gwylf'>Interested in Upgrading? </a></description>" <pubDate>Fri, 01 Mar 2024 18:04:21 +0000</pubDate> <link>https://la.mathworks.com/support/bugreports/3064031</link> <guid>https://la.mathworks.com/support/bugreports/3064031</guid> </item> <item> <title>Embedded Coder - Incorrect Code Generation: Incorrect array indexing in a for-loop for discontiguous signals</title> "<description>The generated code for a Simulink block or S-function might use an incorrect for-loop index instead of producing an error when all of the following conditions are true:<ul><li>The block has a discontiguous input signal.</li><li>The block has a tunable parameter that uses a field of a structure variable.</li></ul>This bug exists in the following release(s): R2023b, R2023a, R2022b, R2022a, R2021b, R2021a, R2020b, R2020a, R2019b, R2019a, R2018b, R2018a, R2017b, R2017a, R2016b, R2016a, R2015b, R2015aSP1, R2015a, R2014b, R2014a, R2013b, R2013a, R2012b, R2012a, R2011b, R2011a, R2010bSP2, R2010bSP1, R2010b, R2010a, R2009bSP1, R2009b, R2009a, R2008b, R2008a, R2007b, R2007a This bug has a workaround <a href='/downloads/web_downloads/agent_check?mode=gwylf'>Interested in Upgrading? </a></description>" <pubDate>Fri, 01 Mar 2024 18:04:21 +0000</pubDate> <link>https://la.mathworks.com/support/bugreports/2882092</link> <guid>https://la.mathworks.com/support/bugreports/2882092</guid> </item> <item> <title>Simulink PLC Coder - Incorrect Code Generation: PLC Coder generates wrong code for the Discrete-time Integrator block using unsupported integrator methods</title> <description>PLC Code generation does not support the following integrator methods of the Discrete-time Integrator block:<ul><li>'Integration: Backward Euler', </li><li>'Integration: Trapezoidal',</li><li>'Accumulation: Backward Euler',</li><li>'Accumulation: Trapezoidal'</li></ul>This bug exists in the following release(s): R2019b, R2019a, R2018b, R2018a, R2017b, R2017a, R2016b, R2016a, R2015b, R2015aSP1, R2015a, R2014b, R2014a, R2013b, R2013a, R2012b, R2012a, R2011b, R2011a, R2010bSP2, R2010bSP1, R2010b, R2010a <a href='/downloads/web_downloads/agent_check?mode=gwylf'>Interested in Upgrading? </a></description> <pubDate>Tue, 06 Feb 2024 03:11:07 +0000</pubDate> <link>https://la.mathworks.com/support/bugreports/2062037</link> <guid>https://la.mathworks.com/support/bugreports/2062037</guid> </item> <item> <title>HDL Verifier - Generated cosimulation model fails to load if the design has a large number of outputs</title> "<description>The HDL Coder product allows for generation of an HDL cosimulation test bench model while generating HDL code. This option is described in <a href=""https://www.mathworks.com/help/hdlcoder/ug/generating-a-simulink-model-for-cosimulation-with-an-hdl-simulator.html"" target=""_self"">Generate a Cosimulation Model</a>. The generated cosimulation model has a scope to compare each design output with the corresponding output from the HDL cosimulation block. When the design includes a large number of outputs, the generated cosimulation model may fail to open and may crash the machine because it runs out of resources trying to open all of the scopes.This bug exists in the following release(s): R2021b, R2021a, R2020b, R2020a, R2019b, R2019a, R2018b, R2018a, R2017b, R2017a, R2016b, R2016a, R2015b, R2015aSP1, R2015a, R2014b, R2014a, R2013b, R2013a, R2012b, R2012a, R2011b, R2011a, R2010bSP2, R2010bSP1, R2010b, R2010a, R2009bSP1, R2009b, R2009a, R2009a, R2009a, R2008b, R2008b, R2008b, R2008a, R2008a, R2008a <a href='/downloads/web_downloads/agent_check?mode=gwylf'>Interested in Upgrading? </a></description>" <pubDate>Mon, 05 Feb 2024 21:36:01 +0000</pubDate> <link>https://la.mathworks.com/support/bugreports/2577568</link> <guid>https://la.mathworks.com/support/bugreports/2577568</guid> </item> <item> <title>Simulink PLC Coder - Incorrect Code Generation: Simulink.CoderInfo object that has Identifier property set causes missing initial values in generated PLC code</title> "<description>Simulink.CoderInfo object has an Identifier property that can be used to change the name of the generated variable. This can result in the variable tr having a different name than that of the original object. For example,>> K1 = Simulink.Parameter >> K1.CoderInfo.StorageClass = 'ExportedGlobal'>> K1.CoderInfo.Identifier = 'gainTune'The generated code in the above case contains a variable named gainTune instead of K1. The initial value for this variable might be missing in the generated PLC code. This bug exists in the following release(s): R2020a, R2019b, R2019a, R2018b, R2018a, R2017b, R2017a, R2016b, R2016a, R2015b, R2015aSP1, R2015a, R2014b, R2014a, R2013b, R2013a, R2012b, R2012a, R2011b, R2011a, R2010bSP2, R2010bSP1, R2010b, R2010a <a href='/downloads/web_downloads/agent_check?mode=gwylf'>Interested in Upgrading? </a></description>" <pubDate>Wed, 18 Oct 2023 11:49:38 +0000</pubDate> <link>https://la.mathworks.com/support/bugreports/2261693</link> <guid>https://la.mathworks.com/support/bugreports/2261693</guid> </item> <item> <title>Simulink - Incorrect Code Generation: Incorrect simulation result might occur when using fixed point data type in S-Function Builder</title> "<description>Simulink might produce incorrect simulation results when you use fixed point signals in your S-Function Builder block, and the data type override is set to a value other than off.This bug exists in the following release(s): R2022a, R2021b, R2021a, R2020b, R2020a, R2019b, R2019a, R2018b, R2018a, R2017b, R2017a, R2016b, R2016a, R2015b, R2015aSP1, R2015a, R2014b, R2014a, R2013b, R2013a, R2012b, R2012a, R2011b, R2011a, R2010bSP2, R2010bSP1, R2010b, R2010a, R2009bSP1, R2009b, R2009a, R2008b, R2008a, R2007b, R2007a, R2007a, R2006b, R2006b, R2006a, R2006a, R14SP3, R14SP3, R14SP2, R14SP2 This bug has a workaround <a href='/downloads/web_downloads/agent_check?mode=gwylf'>Interested in Upgrading? </a></description>" <pubDate>Tue, 17 Oct 2023 16:23:12 +0000</pubDate> <link>https://la.mathworks.com/support/bugreports/2640372</link> <guid>https://la.mathworks.com/support/bugreports/2640372</guid> </item> <item> <title>Simulink - Simulation results might be incorrect for model reference hierarchies when top model or parent model disables zero-crossing detection</title> "<description>When the top model or a parent model in a model reference hierarchy sets the Zero-crossing control parameter to Disable All, simulation results might be incorrect if one or more referenced models in the hierarchy use a different setting for the Zero-crossing control parameter. For incorrect simulation results to occur, all of these conditions must apply: <ul><li>The top model must use a variable-step solver.</li><li>The model hierarchy must contain continuous states.</li><li>The referenced model that uses a different setting for the Zero-crossing control parameter must contain blocks that support zero-crossing detection, and the output of those blocks must affect continuous state values.</li></ul><div>This bug affects results in simulation only and does not affect code generated from the model or results computed using generated code.</div>This bug exists in the following release(s): R2023b, R2023a, R2022b, R2022a, R2021b, R2021a, R2020b, R2020a, R2019b, R2019a, R2018b, R2018a, R2017b, R2017a, R2016b, R2016a, R2015b, R2015aSP1, R2015a, R2014b, R2014a, R2013b, R2013a, R2012b, R2012a, R2011b, R2011a, R2010bSP2, R2010bSP1, R2010b, R2010a, R2009bSP1, R2009b, R2009a, R2008b, R2008a, R2007b, R2007a, R2007a, R2006b, R2006b, R2006a, R2006a, R14SP3, R14SP3, R14SP2, R14SP2, R14SP1, R14SP1 This bug has a workaround <a href='/downloads/web_downloads/agent_check?mode=gwylf'>Interested in Upgrading? </a></description>" <pubDate>Mon, 02 Oct 2023 13:38:01 +0000</pubDate> <link>https://la.mathworks.com/support/bugreports/3046321</link> <guid>https://la.mathworks.com/support/bugreports/3046321</guid> </item> <item> <title>Simulink Coder - Incorrect Code Generation: Variable-size output signal might not be properly initialized in generated code or Rapid Accelerator</title> <description>A variable-size output signal, connected to a root outport block, might be incorrectly initialized in generated code or when simulating in Rapid Accelerator mode if the signal originates in a conditionally executed subsystem. This might happen if the output value of the conditionally executed subsystem is held and the execution of the subsystem is not triggered during the step function.In releases prior to R2011a, this bug also affects legacy products Stateflow Coder, Link for TASKING, Link for Code Composer Studio, and the various Embedded Targets and Target Support Packages.This bug exists in the following release(s): R2023a, R2023a, R2022b, R2022b, R2022a, R2022a, R2021b, R2021b, R2021a, R2021a, R2020b, R2020b, R2020a, R2020a, R2019b, R2019b, R2019a, R2019a, R2018b, R2018b, R2018a, R2018a, R2017b, R2017b, R2017a, R2017a, R2016b, R2016b, R2016a, R2016a, R2015b, R2015b, R2015aSP1, R2015aSP1, R2015a, R2015a, R2014b, R2014b, R2014a, R2014a, R2013b, R2013b, R2013a, R2013a, R2012b, R2012b, R2012a, R2012a, R2011b, R2011b, R2011a, R2011a, R2010bSP2, R2010bSP1, R2010b, R2010a, R2009bSP1, R2009b, R2009a, R2008b, R2008a, R2007b, R2007a, R2006b <a href='/downloads/web_downloads/agent_check?mode=gwylf'>Interested in Upgrading? </a></description> <pubDate>Fri, 22 Sep 2023 19:43:58 +0000</pubDate> <link>https://la.mathworks.com/support/bugreports/2893511</link> <guid>https://la.mathworks.com/support/bugreports/2893511</guid> </item> <item> <title>Simulink - Incorrect Code Generation: Lookup Table (n-D) blocks incorrectly share same lookupnd function for some heterogeneous fixed-point inputs and floating-point breakpoints</title> "<description>Lookup Table (n-D) blocks might incorrectly share the same lookupnd function for some heterogeneous fixed-point inputs and floating-point breakpoints when the following conditions are true for two or more Lookup Table (n-D) blocks in a model:<ul><li>The breakpoints are double or single floating-point data types.</li><li>The inputs are fixed-point data types with same container word length, different fixed exponent. </li></ul>The incorrectly shared lookupnd function might lead to wrong results from the generated code in accelerator and rapid accelerator modes, and in all production targets.This bug is Fixed in R2019a This bug exists in the following release(s): R2018b, R2018a, R2017b, R2017a, R2016b, R2016a, R2015b, R2015aSP1, R2015a, R2014b, R2014a, R2013b, R2013a, R2012b, R2012a, R2011b, R2011a, R2010bSP2, R2010bSP1, R2010b, R2010a, R2009bSP1, R2009b, R2009a, R2008b, R2008a <a href='/downloads/web_downloads/agent_check?mode=gwylf'>Interested in Upgrading? </a></description>" <pubDate>Mon, 18 Sep 2023 15:26:04 +0000</pubDate> <link>https://la.mathworks.com/support/bugreports/1852243</link> <guid>https://la.mathworks.com/support/bugreports/1852243</guid> </item> <item> <title>MATLAB - Calling the sign function with NaN as input may return a NaN with a different bit pattern</title> "<description>Calling the <tt>sign</tt> function with <tt>NaN</tt> as input may return a <tt>NaN</tt> with a different bit pattern. The output is still a valid representation of <tt>NaN</tt> but it has a different bit pattern than the input <tt>NaN</tt> value. To reproduce this behavior, start a fresh session of MATLAB then execute the following code. Note that the value at the fifth iteration of the loop is different from the value displayed by the previous four. for iter = 1:5 s = sign(NaN); fprintf("Bit pattern of sign(NaN) is %bx and isnan(sign(NaN)) returns %s.\n", s, string(isnan(s))) end " "<div class=""content""><div class=""SBD3B5EB60"">Bit pattern of sign(NaN) is fff8000000000000 and isnan(sign(NaN)) returns true.</div><div class=""SBD3B5EB60"">Bit pattern of sign(NaN) is fff8000000000000 and isnan(sign(NaN)) returns true.</div><div class=""SBD3B5EB60"">Bit pattern of sign(NaN) is fff8000000000000 and isnan(sign(NaN)) returns true.</div><div class=""SBD3B5EB60"">Bit pattern of sign(NaN) is fff8000000000000 and isnan(sign(NaN)) returns true.</div><div class=""SBD3B5EB60"">Bit pattern of sign(NaN) is ffffffffffffffff and isnan(sign(NaN)) returns true.</div><div class=""SBD3B5EB62""> </div></div>This bug exists in the following release(s): R2023a, R2022b, R2022a, R2021b, R2021a, R2020b, R2020a, R2019b, R2019a, R2018b, R2018a, R2017b, R2017a, R2016b, R2016a, R2015b, R2015aSP1, R2015a, R2014b, R2014a, R2013b, R2013a, R2012b, R2012a, R2011b, R2011a, R2010bSP2, R2010bSP1, R2010b, R2010a <a href='/downloads/web_downloads/agent_check?mode=gwylf'>Interested in Upgrading? </a></description>" <pubDate>Wed, 13 Sep 2023 23:54:40 +0000</pubDate> <link>https://la.mathworks.com/support/bugreports/2895504</link> <guid>https://la.mathworks.com/support/bugreports/2895504</guid> </item> </channel> </rss>

Cambio en la celda explicativa de la plata[editar]

La conductividad eléctrica del platino es mayor y cercana a la del grafito

https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platino

Sugiero añadir platino y cambiar el comentario.

Sugiero fusión con Conductividad Eléctrica[editar]

Al menos este artículo de

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conductividad_el%C3%A9ctrica

está más completo que este esbozo,

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conductancia_el%C3%A9ctrica

por ello me atreví a pedir la fusión y pero no veo sentido a tener dos artículos de lo mismo.

He trabajado aplicando la conductividad eléctrica y hasta ahora me topo en la wiki que hay un artículo de conductancia... Se pueden manejar como sinónimos. tintin 03-11-2006 16:36.

Lee las primeras cinco líneas del artículo y comprenderás por qué tu petición non tiene sentido. Lee sobre todo la frase "Es una de las características más importantes de No confundir con la conductancia, ...". -- LPFR 14:06 7 nov 2006 (CET)

Hola, un detalle importante: el link de la version inglesa a la española, nos conduce desde conductivity a conductancia, lo cual es un error!

Supongo que es un fallo de la versión inglesa, pero lo digo para que lo sepan los wikipedistas correspondientessss!! Ciao

Ya me quedó claro que son propiedades diferentes, lamento mi error, pero la en.wiki y de:wiki me llevó a tal disparate. --tintin (discusión) 15:21 1 abr 2008 (UTC)[responder]

@Mxtintin

"<?xml version=""1.0"" encoding=""UTF-8""?>"

"<rss version=""2.0"" xmlns:dc=""http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"">"

<title>MathWorks - Bug Reports</title>

<description>The most recent published and/or updated Bug Reports for R2010a (): all products</description>

<item>

<title>Simulink Coder - Incorrect Code Generation: Incorrect fixed-point information is generated in C-API file for root-level outputs</title>

"<description>The C-API file (model_capi.c) generated by the code generator may contain incorrect fixed-point information for root-level outputs present in rtwCAPI_Signals structure. Instead of the actual number, the fxpIndex (fixed-point index) is incorrectly assigned with zero. This indicates wrongly that the signal does not have fixed-point information.This bug exists in the following release(s): R2023a, R2023a, R2022b, R2022b, R2022a, R2022a, R2021b, R2021b, R2021a, R2021a, R2020b, R2020b, R2020a, R2020a, R2019b, R2019b, R2019a, R2019a, R2018b, R2018b, R2018a, R2018a, R2017b, R2017b, R2017a, R2017a, R2016b, R2016b, R2016a, R2016a, R2015b, R2015b, R2015aSP1, R2015aSP1, R2015a, R2015a, R2014b, R2014b, R2014a, R2014a, R2013b, R2013b, R2013a, R2013a, R2012b, R2012b, R2012a, R2012a, R2011b, R2011b, R2011a, R2011a, R2010bSP2, R2010bSP1, R2010b, R2010a, R2009bSP1, R2009b, R2009a, R2008b, R2008a, R2007b, R2007a, R2006b, R2006a, R14SP3, R14SP2, R14SP1, R13SP2, R13SP1 This bug has a workaround <a href='/downloads/web_downloads/agent_check?mode=gwylf'>Interested in Upgrading? </a></description>"

<guid>https://la.mathworks.com/support/bugreports/3064031</guid>

</item>

<item>

<title>Embedded Coder - Incorrect Code Generation: Incorrect array indexing in a for-loop for discontiguous signals</title>

"<description>The generated code for a Simulink block or S-function might use an incorrect for-loop index instead of producing an error when all of the following conditions are true:<ul><li>The block has a discontiguous input signal.</li><li>The block has a tunable parameter that uses a field of a structure variable.</li></ul>This bug exists in the following release(s): R2023b, R2023a, R2022b, R2022a, R2021b, R2021a, R2020b, R2020a, R2019b, R2019a, R2018b, R2018a, R2017b, R2017a, R2016b, R2016a, R2015b, R2015aSP1, R2015a, R2014b, R2014a, R2013b, R2013a, R2012b, R2012a, R2011b, R2011a, R2010bSP2, R2010bSP1, R2010b, R2010a, R2009bSP1, R2009b, R2009a, R2008b, R2008a, R2007b, R2007a This bug has a workaround <a href='/downloads/web_downloads/agent_check?mode=gwylf'>Interested in Upgrading? </a></description>"

<guid>https://la.mathworks.com/support/bugreports/2882092</guid>

</item>

<item>

<title>Simulink PLC Coder - Incorrect Code Generation: PLC Coder generates wrong code for the Discrete-time Integrator block using unsupported integrator methods</title>

<description>PLC Code generation does not support the following integrator methods of the Discrete-time Integrator block:<ul><li>'Integration: Backward Euler', </li><li>'Integration: Trapezoidal',</li><li>'Accumulation: Backward Euler',</li><li>'Accumulation: Trapezoidal'</li></ul>This bug exists in the following release(s): R2019b, R2019a, R2018b, R2018a, R2017b, R2017a, R2016b, R2016a, R2015b, R2015aSP1, R2015a, R2014b, R2014a, R2013b, R2013a, R2012b, R2012a, R2011b, R2011a, R2010bSP2, R2010bSP1, R2010b, R2010a <a href='/downloads/web_downloads/agent_check?mode=gwylf'>Interested in Upgrading? </a></description>

<guid>https://la.mathworks.com/support/bugreports/2062037</guid>

</item>

<item>

<title>HDL Verifier - Generated cosimulation model fails to load if the design has a large number of outputs</title>

"<description>The HDL Coder product allows for generation of an HDL cosimulation test bench model while generating HDL code. This option is described in <a href=""https://www.mathworks.com/help/hdlcoder/ug/generating-a-simulink-model-for-cosimulation-with-an-hdl-simulator.html"" target=""_self"">Generate a Cosimulation Model</a>. The generated cosimulation model has a scope to compare each design output with the corresponding output from the HDL cosimulation block. When the design includes a large number of outputs, the generated cosimulation model may fail to open and may crash the machine because it runs out of resources trying to open all of the scopes.This bug exists in the following release(s): R2021b, R2021a, R2020b, R2020a, R2019b, R2019a, R2018b, R2018a, R2017b, R2017a, R2016b, R2016a, R2015b, R2015aSP1, R2015a, R2014b, R2014a, R2013b, R2013a, R2012b, R2012a, R2011b, R2011a, R2010bSP2, R2010bSP1, R2010b, R2010a, R2009bSP1, R2009b, R2009a, R2009a, R2009a, R2008b, R2008b, R2008b, R2008a, R2008a, R2008a <a href='/downloads/web_downloads/agent_check?mode=gwylf'>Interested in Upgrading? </a></description>"

<guid>https://la.mathworks.com/support/bugreports/2577568</guid>

</item>

<item>

<title>Simulink PLC Coder - Incorrect Code Generation: Simulink.CoderInfo object that has Identifier property set causes missing initial values in generated PLC code</title>

"<description>Simulink.CoderInfo object has an Identifier property that can be used to change the name of the generated variable. This can result in the variable tr having a different name than that of the original object. For example,>> K1 = Simulink.Parameter >> K1.CoderInfo.StorageClass = 'ExportedGlobal'>> K1.CoderInfo.Identifier = 'gainTune'The generated code in the above case contains a variable named gainTune instead of K1. The initial value for this variable might be missing in the generated PLC code. This bug exists in the following release(s): R2020a, R2019b, R2019a, R2018b, R2018a, R2017b, R2017a, R2016b, R2016a, R2015b, R2015aSP1, R2015a, R2014b, R2014a, R2013b, R2013a, R2012b, R2012a, R2011b, R2011a, R2010bSP2, R2010bSP1, R2010b, R2010a <a href='/downloads/web_downloads/agent_check?mode=gwylf'>Interested in Upgrading? </a></description>"

<guid>https://la.mathworks.com/support/bugreports/2261693</guid>

</item>

<item>

<title>Simulink - Incorrect Code Generation: Incorrect simulation result might occur when using fixed point data type in S-Function Builder</title>

"<description>Simulink might produce incorrect simulation results when you use fixed point signals in your S-Function Builder block, and the data type override is set to a value other than off.This bug exists in the following release(s): R2022a, R2021b, R2021a, R2020b, R2020a, R2019b, R2019a, R2018b, R2018a, R2017b, R2017a, R2016b, R2016a, R2015b, R2015aSP1, R2015a, R2014b, R2014a, R2013b, R2013a, R2012b, R2012a, R2011b, R2011a, R2010bSP2, R2010bSP1, R2010b, R2010a, R2009bSP1, R2009b, R2009a, R2008b, R2008a, R2007b, R2007a, R2007a, R2006b, R2006b, R2006a, R2006a, R14SP3, R14SP3, R14SP2, R14SP2 This bug has a workaround <a href='/downloads/web_downloads/agent_check?mode=gwylf'>Interested in Upgrading? </a></description>"

<guid>https://la.mathworks.com/support/bugreports/2640372</guid>

</item>

<item>

<title>Simulink - Simulation results might be incorrect for model reference hierarchies when top model or parent model disables zero-crossing detection</title>

"<description>When the top model or a parent model in a model reference hierarchy sets the Zero-crossing control parameter to Disable All, simulation results might be incorrect if one or more referenced models in the hierarchy use a different setting for the Zero-crossing control parameter. For incorrect simulation results to occur, all of these conditions must apply: <ul><li>The top model must use a variable-step solver.</li><li>The model hierarchy must contain continuous states.</li><li>The referenced model that uses a different setting for the Zero-crossing control parameter must contain blocks that support zero-crossing detection, and the output of those blocks must affect continuous state values.</li></ul><div>This bug affects results in simulation only and does not affect code generated from the model or results computed using generated code.</div>This bug exists in the following release(s): R2023b, R2023a, R2022b, R2022a, R2021b, R2021a, R2020b, R2020a, R2019b, R2019a, R2018b, R2018a, R2017b, R2017a, R2016b, R2016a, R2015b, R2015aSP1, R2015a, R2014b, R2014a, R2013b, R2013a, R2012b, R2012a, R2011b, R2011a, R2010bSP2, R2010bSP1, R2010b, R2010a, R2009bSP1, R2009b, R2009a, R2008b, R2008a, R2007b, R2007a, R2007a, R2006b, R2006b, R2006a, R2006a, R14SP3, R14SP3, R14SP2, R14SP2, R14SP1, R14SP1 This bug has a workaround <a href='/downloads/web_downloads/agent_check?mode=gwylf'>Interested in Upgrading? </a></description>"

<guid>https://la.mathworks.com/support/bugreports/3046321</guid>

</item>

<item>

<title>Simulink Coder - Incorrect Code Generation: Variable-size output signal might not be properly initialized in generated code or Rapid Accelerator</title>

<description>A variable-size output signal, connected to a root outport block, might be incorrectly initialized in generated code or when simulating in Rapid Accelerator mode if the signal originates in a conditionally executed subsystem. This might happen if the output value of the conditionally executed subsystem is held and the execution of the subsystem is not triggered during the step function.In releases prior to R2011a, this bug also affects legacy products Stateflow Coder, Link for TASKING, Link for Code Composer Studio, and the various Embedded Targets and Target Support Packages.This bug exists in the following release(s): R2023a, R2023a, R2022b, R2022b, R2022a, R2022a, R2021b, R2021b, R2021a, R2021a, R2020b, R2020b, R2020a, R2020a, R2019b, R2019b, R2019a, R2019a, R2018b, R2018b, R2018a, R2018a, R2017b, R2017b, R2017a, R2017a, R2016b, R2016b, R2016a, R2016a, R2015b, R2015b, R2015aSP1, R2015aSP1, R2015a, R2015a, R2014b, R2014b, R2014a, R2014a, R2013b, R2013b, R2013a, R2013a, R2012b, R2012b, R2012a, R2012a, R2011b, R2011b, R2011a, R2011a, R2010bSP2, R2010bSP1, R2010b, R2010a, R2009bSP1, R2009b, R2009a, R2008b, R2008a, R2007b, R2007a, R2006b <a href='/downloads/web_downloads/agent_check?mode=gwylf'>Interested in Upgrading? </a></description>

<guid>https://la.mathworks.com/support/bugreports/2893511</guid>

</item>

<item>

<title>Simulink - Incorrect Code Generation: Lookup Table (n-D) blocks incorrectly share same lookupnd function for some heterogeneous fixed-point inputs and floating-point breakpoints</title>

"<description>Lookup Table (n-D) blocks might incorrectly share the same lookupnd function for some heterogeneous fixed-point inputs and floating-point breakpoints when the following conditions are true for two or more Lookup Table (n-D) blocks in a model:<ul><li>The breakpoints are double or single floating-point data types.</li><li>The inputs are fixed-point data types with same container word length, different fixed exponent. </li></ul>The incorrectly shared lookupnd function might lead to wrong results from the generated code in accelerator and rapid accelerator modes, and in all production targets.This bug is Fixed in R2019a This bug exists in the following release(s): R2018b, R2018a, R2017b, R2017a, R2016b, R2016a, R2015b, R2015aSP1, R2015a, R2014b, R2014a, R2013b, R2013a, R2012b, R2012a, R2011b, R2011a, R2010bSP2, R2010bSP1, R2010b, R2010a, R2009bSP1, R2009b, R2009a, R2008b, R2008a <a href='/downloads/web_downloads/agent_check?mode=gwylf'>Interested in Upgrading? </a></description>"

<guid>https://la.mathworks.com/support/bugreports/1852243</guid>

</item>

<item>

<title>MATLAB - Calling the sign function with NaN as input may return a NaN with a different bit pattern</title>

"<description>Calling the <tt>sign</tt> function with <tt>NaN</tt> as input may return a <tt>NaN</tt> with a different bit pattern. The output is still a valid representation of <tt>NaN</tt> but it has a different bit pattern than the input <tt>NaN</tt> value. To reproduce this behavior, start a fresh session of MATLAB then execute the following code. Note that the value at the fifth iteration of the loop is different from the value displayed by the previous four. for iter = 1:5 s = sign(NaN); fprintf("Bit pattern of sign(NaN) is %bx and isnan(sign(NaN)) returns %s.\n", s, string(isnan(s))) end "

"<div class=""content""><div class=""SBD3B5EB60"">Bit pattern of sign(NaN) is fff8000000000000 and isnan(sign(NaN)) returns true.</div><div class=""SBD3B5EB60"">Bit pattern of sign(NaN) is fff8000000000000 and isnan(sign(NaN)) returns true.</div><div class=""SBD3B5EB60"">Bit pattern of sign(NaN) is fff8000000000000 and isnan(sign(NaN)) returns true.</div><div class=""SBD3B5EB60"">Bit pattern of sign(NaN) is fff8000000000000 and isnan(sign(NaN)) returns true.</div><div class=""SBD3B5EB60"">Bit pattern of sign(NaN) is ffffffffffffffff and isnan(sign(NaN)) returns true.</div><div class=""SBD3B5EB62""> </div></div>This bug exists in the following release(s): R2023a, R2022b, R2022a, R2021b, R2021a, R2020b, R2020a, R2019b, R2019a, R2018b, R2018a, R2017b, R2017a, R2016b, R2016a, R2015b, R2015aSP1, R2015a, R2014b, R2014a, R2013b, R2013a, R2012b, R2012a, R2011b, R2011a, R2010bSP2, R2010bSP1, R2010b, R2010a <a href='/downloads/web_downloads/agent_check?mode=gwylf'>Interested in Upgrading? </a></description>"

<guid>https://la.mathworks.com/support/bugreports/2895504</guid>

</item>

</channel>

</rss> LOUIS5070 (discusión) 21:12 18 mar 2024 (UTC)[responder]

Naada[editar]

Ya está solucionado lo anterior, le he metido la zarpa a la versión inglesa ;) — El comentario anterior es obra de 83.61.167.10 (disc. · contr. · bloq.), quien olvidó firmarlo. Manwë 13:31 6 ago 2007 (CEST)

Algunas conductividades electricas[editar]

El utilizar como ejemplo de conductividad de las disoluciones el agua marina de 35 g/L no me parece el más acertado, pues esta concentración de sal solo se da en lagos donde la concentración de sales ha llegado a valores próximos al de saturación, como ocurre en el Mar Muerto, en Israel. En mi opinión, sería más acertado utilizar la conductividad correspondiente a 25 g/L que es aproximadamente la concentración salina media de los mares y océanos. En este caso, la conductividad sería del orden de 3,5 S/m, dependiendo de la temperatura a la que se mide.

Enlaces a otros idiomas[editar]

Sucede algo extraño con los enlaces, en partícular el enlace hacia la versión en francés. Éste lleva a https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mod%C3%A8le:Tableau_p%C3%A9riodique_(valeurs), en lugar de https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conductivit%C3%A9_%C3%A9lectrique. Intenté correguir este problema con la opción que se ofrece en el bloque de idiomas. Sin embargo en la página de enlaces todo está bien. De hecho allí aparecen más enlaces de los mostrados en modo lectura.

Enlaces externos modificados[editar]

Hola,

Acabo de modificar 1 enlaces externos en Conductividad eléctrica. Por favor tomaos un momento para revisar mi edición. Si tenéis alguna pregunta o necesitáis que el bot ignore los enlaces o toda la página en su conjunto, por favor visitad esta simple guía para ver información adicional. He realizado los siguientes cambios:

Se añadió el archivo https://web.archive.org/web/20180118072121/http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/general_physics/2_7/2_7_9.html a http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/general_physics/2_7/2_7_9.html

Por favor acudid a la guía anteriormente enlazada para más información sobre cómo corregir los errores que el bot pueda cometer.

Saludos.—InternetArchiveBot (Reportar un error) 00:13 2 sep 2019 (UTC)[responder]

@InternetArchiveBot

"<?xml version=""1.0"" encoding=""UTF-8""?>"

"<rss version=""2.0"" xmlns:dc=""http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"">"

<title>MathWorks - Bug Reports</title>

<description>The most recent published and/or updated Bug Reports for R2010a (): all products</description>

<item>

<title>Simulink Coder - Incorrect Code Generation: Incorrect fixed-point information is generated in C-API file for root-level outputs</title>

"<description>The C-API file (model_capi.c) generated by the code generator may contain incorrect fixed-point information for root-level outputs present in rtwCAPI_Signals structure. Instead of the actual number, the fxpIndex (fixed-point index) is incorrectly assigned with zero. This indicates wrongly that the signal does not have fixed-point information.This bug exists in the following release(s): R2023a, R2023a, R2022b, R2022b, R2022a, R2022a, R2021b, R2021b, R2021a, R2021a, R2020b, R2020b, R2020a, R2020a, R2019b, R2019b, R2019a, R2019a, R2018b, R2018b, R2018a, R2018a, R2017b, R2017b, R2017a, R2017a, R2016b, R2016b, R2016a, R2016a, R2015b, R2015b, R2015aSP1, R2015aSP1, R2015a, R2015a, R2014b, R2014b, R2014a, R2014a, R2013b, R2013b, R2013a, R2013a, R2012b, R2012b, R2012a, R2012a, R2011b, R2011b, R2011a, R2011a, R2010bSP2, R2010bSP1, R2010b, R2010a, R2009bSP1, R2009b, R2009a, R2008b, R2008a, R2007b, R2007a, R2006b, R2006a, R14SP3, R14SP2, R14SP1, R13SP2, R13SP1 This bug has a workaround <a href='/downloads/web_downloads/agent_check?mode=gwylf'>Interested in Upgrading? </a></description>"

<guid>https://la.mathworks.com/support/bugreports/3064031</guid>

</item>

<item>

<title>Embedded Coder - Incorrect Code Generation: Incorrect array indexing in a for-loop for discontiguous signals</title>

"<description>The generated code for a Simulink block or S-function might use an incorrect for-loop index instead of producing an error when all of the following conditions are true:<ul><li>The block has a discontiguous input signal.</li><li>The block has a tunable parameter that uses a field of a structure variable.</li></ul>This bug exists in the following release(s): R2023b, R2023a, R2022b, R2022a, R2021b, R2021a, R2020b, R2020a, R2019b, R2019a, R2018b, R2018a, R2017b, R2017a, R2016b, R2016a, R2015b, R2015aSP1, R2015a, R2014b, R2014a, R2013b, R2013a, R2012b, R2012a, R2011b, R2011a, R2010bSP2, R2010bSP1, R2010b, R2010a, R2009bSP1, R2009b, R2009a, R2008b, R2008a, R2007b, R2007a This bug has a workaround <a href='/downloads/web_downloads/agent_check?mode=gwylf'>Interested in Upgrading? </a></description>"

<guid>https://la.mathworks.com/support/bugreports/2882092</guid>

</item>

<item>

<title>Simulink PLC Coder - Incorrect Code Generation: PLC Coder generates wrong code for the Discrete-time Integrator block using unsupported integrator methods</title>

<description>PLC Code generation does not support the following integrator methods of the Discrete-time Integrator block:<ul><li>'Integration: Backward Euler', </li><li>'Integration: Trapezoidal',</li><li>'Accumulation: Backward Euler',</li><li>'Accumulation: Trapezoidal'</li></ul>This bug exists in the following release(s): R2019b, R2019a, R2018b, R2018a, R2017b, R2017a, R2016b, R2016a, R2015b, R2015aSP1, R2015a, R2014b, R2014a, R2013b, R2013a, R2012b, R2012a, R2011b, R2011a, R2010bSP2, R2010bSP1, R2010b, R2010a <a href='/downloads/web_downloads/agent_check?mode=gwylf'>Interested in Upgrading? </a></description>

<guid>https://la.mathworks.com/support/bugreports/2062037</guid>

</item>

<item>

<title>HDL Verifier - Generated cosimulation model fails to load if the design has a large number of outputs</title>

"<description>The HDL Coder product allows for generation of an HDL cosimulation test bench model while generating HDL code. This option is described in <a href=""https://www.mathworks.com/help/hdlcoder/ug/generating-a-simulink-model-for-cosimulation-with-an-hdl-simulator.html"" target=""_self"">Generate a Cosimulation Model</a>. The generated cosimulation model has a scope to compare each design output with the corresponding output from the HDL cosimulation block. When the design includes a large number of outputs, the generated cosimulation model may fail to open and may crash the machine because it runs out of resources trying to open all of the scopes.This bug exists in the following release(s): R2021b, R2021a, R2020b, R2020a, R2019b, R2019a, R2018b, R2018a, R2017b, R2017a, R2016b, R2016a, R2015b, R2015aSP1, R2015a, R2014b, R2014a, R2013b, R2013a, R2012b, R2012a, R2011b, R2011a, R2010bSP2, R2010bSP1, R2010b, R2010a, R2009bSP1, R2009b, R2009a, R2009a, R2009a, R2008b, R2008b, R2008b, R2008a, R2008a, R2008a <a href='/downloads/web_downloads/agent_check?mode=gwylf'>Interested in Upgrading? </a></description>"

<guid>https://la.mathworks.com/support/bugreports/2577568</guid>

</item>

<item>

<title>Simulink PLC Coder - Incorrect Code Generation: Simulink.CoderInfo object that has Identifier property set causes missing initial values in generated PLC code</title>

"<description>Simulink.CoderInfo object has an Identifier property that can be used to change the name of the generated variable. This can result in the variable tr having a different name than that of the original object. For example,>> K1 = Simulink.Parameter >> K1.CoderInfo.StorageClass = 'ExportedGlobal'>> K1.CoderInfo.Identifier = 'gainTune'The generated code in the above case contains a variable named gainTune instead of K1. The initial value for this variable might be missing in the generated PLC code. This bug exists in the following release(s): R2020a, R2019b, R2019a, R2018b, R2018a, R2017b, R2017a, R2016b, R2016a, R2015b, R2015aSP1, R2015a, R2014b, R2014a, R2013b, R2013a, R2012b, R2012a, R2011b, R2011a, R2010bSP2, R2010bSP1, R2010b, R2010a <a href='/downloads/web_downloads/agent_check?mode=gwylf'>Interested in Upgrading? </a></description>"

<guid>https://la.mathworks.com/support/bugreports/2261693</guid>

</item>

<item>

<title>Simulink - Incorrect Code Generation: Incorrect simulation result might occur when using fixed point data type in S-Function Builder</title>

"<description>Simulink might produce incorrect simulation results when you use fixed point signals in your S-Function Builder block, and the data type override is set to a value other than off.This bug exists in the following release(s): R2022a, R2021b, R2021a, R2020b, R2020a, R2019b, R2019a, R2018b, R2018a, R2017b, R2017a, R2016b, R2016a, R2015b, R2015aSP1, R2015a, R2014b, R2014a, R2013b, R2013a, R2012b, R2012a, R2011b, R2011a, R2010bSP2, R2010bSP1, R2010b, R2010a, R2009bSP1, R2009b, R2009a, R2008b, R2008a, R2007b, R2007a, R2007a, R2006b, R2006b, R2006a, R2006a, R14SP3, R14SP3, R14SP2, R14SP2 This bug has a workaround <a href='/downloads/web_downloads/agent_check?mode=gwylf'>Interested in Upgrading? </a></description>"

<guid>https://la.mathworks.com/support/bugreports/2640372</guid>

</item>

<item>

<title>Simulink - Simulation results might be incorrect for model reference hierarchies when top model or parent model disables zero-crossing detection</title>

"<description>When the top model or a parent model in a model reference hierarchy sets the Zero-crossing control parameter to Disable All, simulation results might be incorrect if one or more referenced models in the hierarchy use a different setting for the Zero-crossing control parameter. For incorrect simulation results to occur, all of these conditions must apply: <ul><li>The top model must use a variable-step solver.</li><li>The model hierarchy must contain continuous states.</li><li>The referenced model that uses a different setting for the Zero-crossing control parameter must contain blocks that support zero-crossing detection, and the output of those blocks must affect continuous state values.</li></ul><div>This bug affects results in simulation only and does not affect code generated from the model or results computed using generated code.</div>This bug exists in the following release(s): R2023b, R2023a, R2022b, R2022a, R2021b, R2021a, R2020b, R2020a, R2019b, R2019a, R2018b, R2018a, R2017b, R2017a, R2016b, R2016a, R2015b, R2015aSP1, R2015a, R2014b, R2014a, R2013b, R2013a, R2012b, R2012a, R2011b, R2011a, R2010bSP2, R2010bSP1, R2010b, R2010a, R2009bSP1, R2009b, R2009a, R2008b, R2008a, R2007b, R2007a, R2007a, R2006b, R2006b, R2006a, R2006a, R14SP3, R14SP3, R14SP2, R14SP2, R14SP1, R14SP1 This bug has a workaround <a href='/downloads/web_downloads/agent_check?mode=gwylf'>Interested in Upgrading? </a></description>"

<guid>https://la.mathworks.com/support/bugreports/3046321</guid>

</item>

<item>

<title>Simulink Coder - Incorrect Code Generation: Variable-size output signal might not be properly initialized in generated code or Rapid Accelerator</title>

<description>A variable-size output signal, connected to a root outport block, might be incorrectly initialized in generated code or when simulating in Rapid Accelerator mode if the signal originates in a conditionally executed subsystem. This might happen if the output value of the conditionally executed subsystem is held and the execution of the subsystem is not triggered during the step function.In releases prior to R2011a, this bug also affects legacy products Stateflow Coder, Link for TASKING, Link for Code Composer Studio, and the various Embedded Targets and Target Support Packages.This bug exists in the following release(s): R2023a, R2023a, R2022b, R2022b, R2022a, R2022a, R2021b, R2021b, R2021a, R2021a, R2020b, R2020b, R2020a, R2020a, R2019b, R2019b, R2019a, R2019a, R2018b, R2018b, R2018a, R2018a, R2017b, R2017b, R2017a, R2017a, R2016b, R2016b, R2016a, R2016a, R2015b, R2015b, R2015aSP1, R2015aSP1, R2015a, R2015a, R2014b, R2014b, R2014a, R2014a, R2013b, R2013b, R2013a, R2013a, R2012b, R2012b, R2012a, R2012a, R2011b, R2011b, R2011a, R2011a, R2010bSP2, R2010bSP1, R2010b, R2010a, R2009bSP1, R2009b, R2009a, R2008b, R2008a, R2007b, R2007a, R2006b <a href='/downloads/web_downloads/agent_check?mode=gwylf'>Interested in Upgrading? </a></description>

<guid>https://la.mathworks.com/support/bugreports/2893511</guid>

</item>

<item>

<title>Simulink - Incorrect Code Generation: Lookup Table (n-D) blocks incorrectly share same lookupnd function for some heterogeneous fixed-point inputs and floating-point breakpoints</title>

"<description>Lookup Table (n-D) blocks might incorrectly share the same lookupnd function for some heterogeneous fixed-point inputs and floating-point breakpoints when the following conditions are true for two or more Lookup Table (n-D) blocks in a model:<ul><li>The breakpoints are double or single floating-point data types.</li><li>The inputs are fixed-point data types with same container word length, different fixed exponent. </li></ul>The incorrectly shared lookupnd function might lead to wrong results from the generated code in accelerator and rapid accelerator modes, and in all production targets.This bug is Fixed in R2019a This bug exists in the following release(s): R2018b, R2018a, R2017b, R2017a, R2016b, R2016a, R2015b, R2015aSP1, R2015a, R2014b, R2014a, R2013b, R2013a, R2012b, R2012a, R2011b, R2011a, R2010bSP2, R2010bSP1, R2010b, R2010a, R2009bSP1, R2009b, R2009a, R2008b, R2008a <a href='/downloads/web_downloads/agent_check?mode=gwylf'>Interested in Upgrading? </a></description>"

<guid>https://la.mathworks.com/support/bugreports/1852243</guid>

</item>

<item>

<title>MATLAB - Calling the sign function with NaN as input may return a NaN with a different bit pattern</title>

"<description>Calling the <tt>sign</tt> function with <tt>NaN</tt> as input may return a <tt>NaN</tt> with a different bit pattern. The output is still a valid representation of <tt>NaN</tt> but it has a different bit pattern than the input <tt>NaN</tt> value. To reproduce this behavior, start a fresh session of MATLAB then execute the following code. Note that the value at the fifth iteration of the loop is different from the value displayed by the previous four. for iter = 1:5 s = sign(NaN); fprintf("Bit pattern of sign(NaN) is %bx and isnan(sign(NaN)) returns %s.\n", s, string(isnan(s))) end "

"<div class=""content""><div class=""SBD3B5EB60"">Bit pattern of sign(NaN) is fff8000000000000 and isnan(sign(NaN)) returns true.</div><div class=""SBD3B5EB60"">Bit pattern of sign(NaN) is fff8000000000000 and isnan(sign(NaN)) returns true.</div><div class=""SBD3B5EB60"">Bit pattern of sign(NaN) is fff8000000000000 and isnan(sign(NaN)) returns true.</div><div class=""SBD3B5EB60"">Bit pattern of sign(NaN) is fff8000000000000 and isnan(sign(NaN)) returns true.</div><div class=""SBD3B5EB60"">Bit pattern of sign(NaN) is ffffffffffffffff and isnan(sign(NaN)) returns true.</div><div class=""SBD3B5EB62""> </div></div>This bug exists in the following release(s): R2023a, R2022b, R2022a, R2021b, R2021a, R2020b, R2020a, R2019b, R2019a, R2018b, R2018a, R2017b, R2017a, R2016b, R2016a, R2015b, R2015aSP1, R2015a, R2014b, R2014a, R2013b, R2013a, R2012b, R2012a, R2011b, R2011a, R2010bSP2, R2010bSP1, R2010b, R2010a <a href='/downloads/web_downloads/agent_check?mode=gwylf'>Interested in Upgrading? </a></description>"

<guid>https://la.mathworks.com/support/bugreports/2895504</guid>

</item>

</channel>

</rss> LOUIS5070 (discusión) 21:12 18 mar 2024 (UTC)[responder]

Enlaces externos modificados[editar]

Hola,

Acabo de modificar 1 enlaces externos en Conductividad eléctrica. Por favor tomaos un momento para revisar mi edición. Si tenéis alguna pregunta o necesitáis que el bot ignore los enlaces o toda la página en su conjunto, por favor visitad esta simple guía para ver información adicional. He realizado los siguientes cambios:

Se añadió el archivo https://web.archive.org/web/20090907005805/http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/copyright/ a http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/copyright/

Por favor acudid a la guía anteriormente enlazada para más información sobre cómo corregir los errores que el bot pueda cometer.

Saludos.—InternetArchiveBot (Reportar un error) 14:13 10 dic 2019 (UTC)[responder]

@InternetArchiveBot

"<?xml version=""1.0"" encoding=""UTF-8""?>"

"<rss version=""2.0"" xmlns:dc=""http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"">"

<title>MathWorks - Bug Reports</title>

<description>The most recent published and/or updated Bug Reports for R2010a (): all products</description>

<item>

<title>Simulink Coder - Incorrect Code Generation: Incorrect fixed-point information is generated in C-API file for root-level outputs</title>

"<description>The C-API file (model_capi.c) generated by the code generator may contain incorrect fixed-point information for root-level outputs present in rtwCAPI_Signals structure. Instead of the actual number, the fxpIndex (fixed-point index) is incorrectly assigned with zero. This indicates wrongly that the signal does not have fixed-point information.This bug exists in the following release(s): R2023a, R2023a, R2022b, R2022b, R2022a, R2022a, R2021b, R2021b, R2021a, R2021a, R2020b, R2020b, R2020a, R2020a, R2019b, R2019b, R2019a, R2019a, R2018b, R2018b, R2018a, R2018a, R2017b, R2017b, R2017a, R2017a, R2016b, R2016b, R2016a, R2016a, R2015b, R2015b, R2015aSP1, R2015aSP1, R2015a, R2015a, R2014b, R2014b, R2014a, R2014a, R2013b, R2013b, R2013a, R2013a, R2012b, R2012b, R2012a, R2012a, R2011b, R2011b, R2011a, R2011a, R2010bSP2, R2010bSP1, R2010b, R2010a, R2009bSP1, R2009b, R2009a, R2008b, R2008a, R2007b, R2007a, R2006b, R2006a, R14SP3, R14SP2, R14SP1, R13SP2, R13SP1 This bug has a workaround <a href='/downloads/web_downloads/agent_check?mode=gwylf'>Interested in Upgrading? </a></description>"

<guid>https://la.mathworks.com/support/bugreports/3064031</guid>

</item>

<item>

<title>Embedded Coder - Incorrect Code Generation: Incorrect array indexing in a for-loop for discontiguous signals</title>

"<description>The generated code for a Simulink block or S-function might use an incorrect for-loop index instead of producing an error when all of the following conditions are true:<ul><li>The block has a discontiguous input signal.</li><li>The block has a tunable parameter that uses a field of a structure variable.</li></ul>This bug exists in the following release(s): R2023b, R2023a, R2022b, R2022a, R2021b, R2021a, R2020b, R2020a, R2019b, R2019a, R2018b, R2018a, R2017b, R2017a, R2016b, R2016a, R2015b, R2015aSP1, R2015a, R2014b, R2014a, R2013b, R2013a, R2012b, R2012a, R2011b, R2011a, R2010bSP2, R2010bSP1, R2010b, R2010a, R2009bSP1, R2009b, R2009a, R2008b, R2008a, R2007b, R2007a This bug has a workaround <a href='/downloads/web_downloads/agent_check?mode=gwylf'>Interested in Upgrading? </a></description>"

<guid>https://la.mathworks.com/support/bugreports/2882092</guid>

</item>

<item>

<title>Simulink PLC Coder - Incorrect Code Generation: PLC Coder generates wrong code for the Discrete-time Integrator block using unsupported integrator methods</title>

<description>PLC Code generation does not support the following integrator methods of the Discrete-time Integrator block:<ul><li>'Integration: Backward Euler', </li><li>'Integration: Trapezoidal',</li><li>'Accumulation: Backward Euler',</li><li>'Accumulation: Trapezoidal'</li></ul>This bug exists in the following release(s): R2019b, R2019a, R2018b, R2018a, R2017b, R2017a, R2016b, R2016a, R2015b, R2015aSP1, R2015a, R2014b, R2014a, R2013b, R2013a, R2012b, R2012a, R2011b, R2011a, R2010bSP2, R2010bSP1, R2010b, R2010a <a href='/downloads/web_downloads/agent_check?mode=gwylf'>Interested in Upgrading? </a></description>

<guid>https://la.mathworks.com/support/bugreports/2062037</guid>

</item>

<item>

<title>HDL Verifier - Generated cosimulation model fails to load if the design has a large number of outputs</title>

"<description>The HDL Coder product allows for generation of an HDL cosimulation test bench model while generating HDL code. This option is described in <a href=""https://www.mathworks.com/help/hdlcoder/ug/generating-a-simulink-model-for-cosimulation-with-an-hdl-simulator.html"" target=""_self"">Generate a Cosimulation Model</a>. The generated cosimulation model has a scope to compare each design output with the corresponding output from the HDL cosimulation block. When the design includes a large number of outputs, the generated cosimulation model may fail to open and may crash the machine because it runs out of resources trying to open all of the scopes.This bug exists in the following release(s): R2021b, R2021a, R2020b, R2020a, R2019b, R2019a, R2018b, R2018a, R2017b, R2017a, R2016b, R2016a, R2015b, R2015aSP1, R2015a, R2014b, R2014a, R2013b, R2013a, R2012b, R2012a, R2011b, R2011a, R2010bSP2, R2010bSP1, R2010b, R2010a, R2009bSP1, R2009b, R2009a, R2009a, R2009a, R2008b, R2008b, R2008b, R2008a, R2008a, R2008a <a href='/downloads/web_downloads/agent_check?mode=gwylf'>Interested in Upgrading? </a></description>"

<guid>https://la.mathworks.com/support/bugreports/2577568</guid>

</item>

<item>

<title>Simulink PLC Coder - Incorrect Code Generation: Simulink.CoderInfo object that has Identifier property set causes missing initial values in generated PLC code</title>

"<description>Simulink.CoderInfo object has an Identifier property that can be used to change the name of the generated variable. This can result in the variable tr having a different name than that of the original object. For example,>> K1 = Simulink.Parameter >> K1.CoderInfo.StorageClass = 'ExportedGlobal'>> K1.CoderInfo.Identifier = 'gainTune'The generated code in the above case contains a variable named gainTune instead of K1. The initial value for this variable might be missing in the generated PLC code. This bug exists in the following release(s): R2020a, R2019b, R2019a, R2018b, R2018a, R2017b, R2017a, R2016b, R2016a, R2015b, R2015aSP1, R2015a, R2014b, R2014a, R2013b, R2013a, R2012b, R2012a, R2011b, R2011a, R2010bSP2, R2010bSP1, R2010b, R2010a <a href='/downloads/web_downloads/agent_check?mode=gwylf'>Interested in Upgrading? </a></description>"

<guid>https://la.mathworks.com/support/bugreports/2261693</guid>

</item>

<item>

<title>Simulink - Incorrect Code Generation: Incorrect simulation result might occur when using fixed point data type in S-Function Builder</title>

"<description>Simulink might produce incorrect simulation results when you use fixed point signals in your S-Function Builder block, and the data type override is set to a value other than off.This bug exists in the following release(s): R2022a, R2021b, R2021a, R2020b, R2020a, R2019b, R2019a, R2018b, R2018a, R2017b, R2017a, R2016b, R2016a, R2015b, R2015aSP1, R2015a, R2014b, R2014a, R2013b, R2013a, R2012b, R2012a, R2011b, R2011a, R2010bSP2, R2010bSP1, R2010b, R2010a, R2009bSP1, R2009b, R2009a, R2008b, R2008a, R2007b, R2007a, R2007a, R2006b, R2006b, R2006a, R2006a, R14SP3, R14SP3, R14SP2, R14SP2 This bug has a workaround <a href='/downloads/web_downloads/agent_check?mode=gwylf'>Interested in Upgrading? </a></description>"

<guid>https://la.mathworks.com/support/bugreports/2640372</guid>

</item>

<item>

<title>Simulink - Simulation results might be incorrect for model reference hierarchies when top model or parent model disables zero-crossing detection</title>

"<description>When the top model or a parent model in a model reference hierarchy sets the Zero-crossing control parameter to Disable All, simulation results might be incorrect if one or more referenced models in the hierarchy use a different setting for the Zero-crossing control parameter. For incorrect simulation results to occur, all of these conditions must apply: <ul><li>The top model must use a variable-step solver.</li><li>The model hierarchy must contain continuous states.</li><li>The referenced model that uses a different setting for the Zero-crossing control parameter must contain blocks that support zero-crossing detection, and the output of those blocks must affect continuous state values.</li></ul><div>This bug affects results in simulation only and does not affect code generated from the model or results computed using generated code.</div>This bug exists in the following release(s): R2023b, R2023a, R2022b, R2022a, R2021b, R2021a, R2020b, R2020a, R2019b, R2019a, R2018b, R2018a, R2017b, R2017a, R2016b, R2016a, R2015b, R2015aSP1, R2015a, R2014b, R2014a, R2013b, R2013a, R2012b, R2012a, R2011b, R2011a, R2010bSP2, R2010bSP1, R2010b, R2010a, R2009bSP1, R2009b, R2009a, R2008b, R2008a, R2007b, R2007a, R2007a, R2006b, R2006b, R2006a, R2006a, R14SP3, R14SP3, R14SP2, R14SP2, R14SP1, R14SP1 This bug has a workaround <a href='/downloads/web_downloads/agent_check?mode=gwylf'>Interested in Upgrading? </a></description>"

<guid>https://la.mathworks.com/support/bugreports/3046321</guid>

</item>

<item>

<title>Simulink Coder - Incorrect Code Generation: Variable-size output signal might not be properly initialized in generated code or Rapid Accelerator</title>

<description>A variable-size output signal, connected to a root outport block, might be incorrectly initialized in generated code or when simulating in Rapid Accelerator mode if the signal originates in a conditionally executed subsystem. This might happen if the output value of the conditionally executed subsystem is held and the execution of the subsystem is not triggered during the step function.In releases prior to R2011a, this bug also affects legacy products Stateflow Coder, Link for TASKING, Link for Code Composer Studio, and the various Embedded Targets and Target Support Packages.This bug exists in the following release(s): R2023a, R2023a, R2022b, R2022b, R2022a, R2022a, R2021b, R2021b, R2021a, R2021a, R2020b, R2020b, R2020a, R2020a, R2019b, R2019b, R2019a, R2019a, R2018b, R2018b, R2018a, R2018a, R2017b, R2017b, R2017a, R2017a, R2016b, R2016b, R2016a, R2016a, R2015b, R2015b, R2015aSP1, R2015aSP1, R2015a, R2015a, R2014b, R2014b, R2014a, R2014a, R2013b, R2013b, R2013a, R2013a, R2012b, R2012b, R2012a, R2012a, R2011b, R2011b, R2011a, R2011a, R2010bSP2, R2010bSP1, R2010b, R2010a, R2009bSP1, R2009b, R2009a, R2008b, R2008a, R2007b, R2007a, R2006b <a href='/downloads/web_downloads/agent_check?mode=gwylf'>Interested in Upgrading? </a></description>

<guid>https://la.mathworks.com/support/bugreports/2893511</guid>

</item>

<item>

<title>Simulink - Incorrect Code Generation: Lookup Table (n-D) blocks incorrectly share same lookupnd function for some heterogeneous fixed-point inputs and floating-point breakpoints</title>

"<description>Lookup Table (n-D) blocks might incorrectly share the same lookupnd function for some heterogeneous fixed-point inputs and floating-point breakpoints when the following conditions are true for two or more Lookup Table (n-D) blocks in a model:<ul><li>The breakpoints are double or single floating-point data types.</li><li>The inputs are fixed-point data types with same container word length, different fixed exponent. </li></ul>The incorrectly shared lookupnd function might lead to wrong results from the generated code in accelerator and rapid accelerator modes, and in all production targets.This bug is Fixed in R2019a This bug exists in the following release(s): R2018b, R2018a, R2017b, R2017a, R2016b, R2016a, R2015b, R2015aSP1, R2015a, R2014b, R2014a, R2013b, R2013a, R2012b, R2012a, R2011b, R2011a, R2010bSP2, R2010bSP1, R2010b, R2010a, R2009bSP1, R2009b, R2009a, R2008b, R2008a <a href='/downloads/web_downloads/agent_check?mode=gwylf'>Interested in Upgrading? </a></description>"

<guid>https://la.mathworks.com/support/bugreports/1852243</guid>

</item>

<item>

<title>MATLAB - Calling the sign function with NaN as input may return a NaN with a different bit pattern</title>

"<description>Calling the <tt>sign</tt> function with <tt>NaN</tt> as input may return a <tt>NaN</tt> with a different bit pattern. The output is still a valid representation of <tt>NaN</tt> but it has a different bit pattern than the input <tt>NaN</tt> value. To reproduce this behavior, start a fresh session of MATLAB then execute the following code. Note that the value at the fifth iteration of the loop is different from the value displayed by the previous four. for iter = 1:5 s = sign(NaN); fprintf("Bit pattern of sign(NaN) is %bx and isnan(sign(NaN)) returns %s.\n", s, string(isnan(s))) end "

"<div class=""content""><div class=""SBD3B5EB60"">Bit pattern of sign(NaN) is fff8000000000000 and isnan(sign(NaN)) returns true.</div><div class=""SBD3B5EB60"">Bit pattern of sign(NaN) is fff8000000000000 and isnan(sign(NaN)) returns true.</div><div class=""SBD3B5EB60"">Bit pattern of sign(NaN) is fff8000000000000 and isnan(sign(NaN)) returns true.</div><div class=""SBD3B5EB60"">Bit pattern of sign(NaN) is fff8000000000000 and isnan(sign(NaN)) returns true.</div><div class=""SBD3B5EB60"">Bit pattern of sign(NaN) is ffffffffffffffff and isnan(sign(NaN)) returns true.</div><div class=""SBD3B5EB62""> </div></div>This bug exists in the following release(s): R2023a, R2022b, R2022a, R2021b, R2021a, R2020b, R2020a, R2019b, R2019a, R2018b, R2018a, R2017b, R2017a, R2016b, R2016a, R2015b, R2015aSP1, R2015a, R2014b, R2014a, R2013b, R2013a, R2012b, R2012a, R2011b, R2011a, R2010bSP2, R2010bSP1, R2010b, R2010a <a href='/downloads/web_downloads/agent_check?mode=gwylf'>Interested in Upgrading? </a></description>"

<guid>https://la.mathworks.com/support/bugreports/2895504</guid>

</item>

</channel>

</rss> LOUIS5070 (discusión) 21:12 18 mar 2024 (UTC)[responder]