| |
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Joseph Woolley wrote:
>
> > After doing some research I settled on using librcx by Kekoa Proudfoot. I
> > compiled the librcx code and my code using the cygwin compiler that people use
> > for brickOS. This combination gave me the huge available memory from QuiteC,
> > and use of Lego ROM code for infrared transmit and receive. librcx does incur
> > the loss of CPU performance due to repeated interrupts. Since I have this
> > interrupt overhead with brickOS (my only other meaningful choice, I don't know
> > Java), it is a don't care. With librcx, I get lots more memory available than
> > with brickOS, with similar interrupt overhead.
>
> I am admittedly biased toward BrickOS; however, I am wondering if you
> attempted to free some memory in BrickOS by disabling features that you
> didn't need?
Nope. I knew there was a certain amount configurability in brickOS, but I
assumed it would be hard to get it down to a minumum.
>
> If you are only going to run one program (whether single threaded or
> multi), you can compile BrickOS without the Program Manager support.
> This frees up a good bit of memory. Disabling threading (task manager)
> would also free up some memory as well as clock cycles; but at a
> significant loss in available features (IMO).
>
> I am just curious; I don't know how many BrickOS users know about those
> options.
With librcx, I started out with the minimum and added only what I needed.
>
> // Joe
Kevin
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
28 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
