2010
DOI: 10.1016/j.csi.2010.03.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Proposed corrections to the IEC 61131-3 standard

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…They also identified that there are two possible ways of parsing the 1 and 0 literals either as a boolean literal or as an integer literal. De Sousa [4] pointed out that it is an error when the standard describes VAR EXTERN…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…They also identified that there are two possible ways of parsing the 1 and 0 literals either as a boolean literal or as an integer literal. De Sousa [4] pointed out that it is an error when the standard describes VAR EXTERN…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To resolve this issue, we have made these prefixes BYTE#, WORD#, DWORD# or LWORD# compulsory in the rule of bit string literal. Also, as pointed out in [4], a symbol unsigned integer has been used in the above specification of bit string literal, which is not defined anywhere else. In ST grammar, integer represents the unsigned integer definition.…”
Section: → Integer → Bit String Literal → Integer → Signed Integer → mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…IEC 61131-3 standard [1] is an attempt to standardize and systematize programming languages for PLCs. Many deficiencies of this specification have been discussed in the literature; e.g., in [2,3]. Even though some PLC manufacturers offer controllers that can be programmed using languages that conform fully, or almost fully, to the IEC 61131-3 standard [4][5][6][7][8], the internal languages or construction of the CPUs of the PLCs have instruction sets that are not compatible or are only partially compatible with it.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, before the final conclusion, the implementation of the languages should also be checked for two reasons: (1) the different manufacturers may have differences in their implementation compared to the standard, and (2) the IEC 61131 standard is ambiguous [1,10,16] and the vendors might resolve the ambiguities differently. The following section compares a concrete implementation of the five PLC programming languages.…”
Section: Standard Languagesmentioning
confidence: 99%