Subprogram

kerfmaster pin list · Definitions

rulingclosed d13A decision by Aristide or Jordan. True because it was decided; it can be superseded, but it cannot be stale.

Content last changed 2026-08-04 — computed from the item itself, not typed.

Vocabulary — Post stage

⚠ Known defects

This item's subject has a known defect in the code. Source: cadmaster/defects.json → cadmaster/KNOWN_DEFECTS.md, not this page — the text below is generated from the register so the two can never disagree.

D13 — The end-of-boundary M-code is keyed on cutter comp; Jordan has confirmed it must not be (CLOSED)
emit.py:1443 picks the end code as `end_mcode_comp if on else end_mcode_g40` -- M121 when a boundary is cut-critical (comp on), M87 when it is not. The control's own glossary says M87 is 'Beam off' and M121 is 'Process end'. Neither is a compensation code. The correlation we built the rule on is 90 comp-off boundaries ending M87 and 1 comp-on boundary ending M121 in the master NC -- and that one boundary is also the LAST boundary in the program, at line 1730 of 1734, which fits 'process end' at least as well as it fits 'comp on'.
Cost today: None. Fixed 2026-08-04 before any file with two top-level profiles was posted.
Verified: 2026-08-03. Code census of the master NC, the 07-29 shop file and a fresh post: all three carry exactly 90 M87 + 1 M121 + 91 M199, and M121 sits 4 lines from M30. Glossary transcribed from machine_codes.json. CONFIRMED by Jordan 2026-08-04, in his own words: "To be clear, M121 & M87 don't have anything to do with cutter comp." The defect is no longer an inference. The replacement rule is now DEFINED too: Jordan defined "subprogram" on 2026-08-04 as one part's G-code, authored from one DXF and called once per instance across a nest. So M121 ends a PART and M87 ends a FEATURE -- which is exactly the 90-to-1 split in the master. The correct rule is `M121 on the last boundary of the subprogram, M87 on every other`, with no reference to comp. Stays OPEN because the fix has not been made: it is a code change and nobody has authorised one. Output is unaffected for a single part whose outer profile is cut last, which is every job shipped so far. Jordan confirmed 2026-08-04 that the inline structure stays for now ("keep it this way for now, and we'll learn more about subprograms and nesting later"), so the fix is the small one: the subprogram is the program, M121 on the last boundary, M87 on every other. No restructuring rides along. FIXED 2026-08-04 on Jordan's go. emit.py now reads `end_mcode_last if bi == len(cons) else end_mcode_feature`, with no reference to comp state, and the kwargs are renamed from end_mcode_comp/end_mcode_g40 so the old idea cannot be re-read out of the signature. Output on the novi part is unchanged -- 90 M87, 1 M121 on the last boundary -- which is the expected result, since the part that exposed the bug does not trigger it.

Jordan, 2026-08-04, asked directly because the word was blocking a fix: "A subprogram will be made from a dxf file, using the same gcode multiple times repeated throughout a nest. (A single gcode can contain the same string multiple times. Example, if we want to draw a circle 100 times on the same sheet, we'd have 1 main program calling out 1 subprogram 100 times.)"

So a subprogram is one part — the whole of a part's cut, all its features, authored once from one DXF. The main program is the sheet: it calls that subprogram once per instance in the nest. This is not the same thing as the pierce subprograms (O9011 and the rest of the 9-series), which are Mitsubishi firmware we call but never author.

Why the definition mattered

It resolves what fires M121. Jordan's rule is "M121 at the end of every subprogram", which now reads: at the end of every part, not at the end of every feature and not once per sheet. Against the master NC that is consistent — one part, 91 boundaries, the last of them ending M121 where the other 90 end M87. A 100-up nest of that part would carry 100 M121s, one per call. See defect D13.

What we do today, stated plainly

cadmaster has no part-level subprogram. Every boundary is written inline into one main program; the only M98 we emit is the pierce call. That is correct for a single part and it is what the master does, but it is not the structure a nest needs. When nesting is built (item 3), the post has to learn to emit a part once and call it N times — and the natural mechanism for placing each call is the work shift, G52, which is the same command we currently use for the 0.2 margin. Not built, not designed, recorded here so the shape is known before anyone starts.

Jordan's decision on when — 2026-08-04

Both structural questions were put to him: should a single part be emitted as a real subprogram even when it is called once, and is G52 the mechanism that positions each call on the sheet. The same answer to both: "Keep it this way for now, and we'll learn more about subprograms and nesting later."

So the inline structure stands, and this is a deliberate hold rather than an oversight. The consequence for D13 is that its fix is the small one: with everything inline, the subprogram is the program, so M121 goes on the last boundary and M87 on every other. No restructuring rides along with the M-code fix.