 | | Re: NQC wishlist
|
|
(...) I believe the simplest way to do it would be to have an extra preprocessing pass... it will slow down compilation a little, it's true, but maybe not that much as to matter (compilation is anyway so much faster than the downloading anyway) then (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: Speed of RCX interpreting bytecodes: slow
|
|
(...) Hmm. If so, an interesting option for a theoretical replacement-but- compatible firmware to have would be the ability to do things as fast as possible. (Of course, it'd have to be an option, since it's possible that some badly-designed code (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
| |
| | Re: Speed of RCX interpreting bytecodes: slow
|
|
Its been a long time since I looked at the firmware in detail, but is it possible that the bytecode interpreter is driven from one of the timer chains? If this was the case, it wouldn't matter if the CPU could execute the bytecode in 200 cycles...it (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC wishlist
|
|
(...) No, this sort of thing isn't covered in my book. There are several ways to send commands to the RCX. The first is the official SDK from TLG (spirit.ocx) which runs under Windows. The SDK contains a reasonable amount of documentation on the (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: (Failed) Getting LegOS 0.2.2 working on Windows
|
|
G'day, (...) When trying to apply the patch I get 3 rejects and a bad formated patch file error message. So I applied the patches by hand. Using your patches, I can compile everything without warning (good on yer!!!) and download legOS.srec as well (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: (Failed) Getting LegOS 0.2.2 working on Windows
|
|
I had the same problem. Under NT WS 4.0 and same instruction for LegOS 0.2.2. Now I've solved!!! I'm here to explain how. (...) Same problem. I've solved getting back the source to the original version (no more WINNT stuff). (...) I've read that you (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Speed of RCX interpreting bytecodes: slow
|
|
(...) From memory, the NQC was: int count; task main() { count = 0; CreateDatalog(100); ClearTimer(Timer(0)); while (count <= 1024) { if (count & 0xff == 0) AddToDatalog(Timer(0)); count += 1; } } The downloaded datalog will show the last log entry (...) (25 years ago, 5-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC wishlist
|
|
(...) [Snip] (...) Okay. Is sending these commands (and which ones that are/can be "immediate") in your book? <G> While I don not have something in mind right this second, the more complex programs get the higher the possibility of someone using (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: Speed of RCX interpreting bytecodes: slow
|
|
(...) What is in a "counter loop iteration" ? Please share the NQC program you used to measure this with us. I fail to believe that a simple loop runs this slow. 16000 cycles per loop iteration does not sound right to me. -Kekoa (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC wishlist
|
|
(...) I'm not sure if the terminology from LEGO is "direct" or "immediate" commands, but either way the idea is that some of the bytecodes can be sent to the RCX and the RCX will execute them immediately. There's a lot of overlap between the direct (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Program dlls
|
|
Is there any documentation on how to use the new program dll feature with LegOS, or will I just find that apparent once I install LegOS and look at the source? Joel Shafer joel@connect.net (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC wishlist
|
|
(...) I am kind of new to this, but what is meant by direct command? How would tasks downloaded in another slot be assessable to some other task to start up? --- DonC donc@cccd.edu (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | RE: NQC wishlist
|
|
(...) This might be a good idea. The pbForth thing is working out well too. Maybe a C to FORTH translator would be useful. In the other hand, making a custom bytecode interpreter means having to write the interpreter and support it on different (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC wish
|
|
Inline functions are by their very nature surpressed. Also, most control structures and calculations that can be evaluated at compile time are eliminated. I thought about surpressing tasks and subs, but then decided not to. The problem is that tasks (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC wishlist
|
|
(...) To me, one of the important features of such a thing would be compatibility with the existing firmware. Otherwise, why not just use LegOS? (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC wishlist
|
|
If anyone is seriously considering this I'd ask two things... 1) Have you considered porting the p-code interpreter used by Interactive C or something like a stripped down Java bytecode interpreter instead? The idea here would be that the RCX (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC wishlist
|
|
(...) Yeah, this was discussed way back at the beginning of the reverse-engineering effort. It's something I'd like to see too. (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC wishlist
|
|
I was jut wondering, has anybody tried to implement a "better RCX-code"? It must be possible to write something very similar to RCX-code in LegOS, only faster and implementing the "missing" array structures and more variables. Mayby compatible with (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | NQC wish
|
|
Hello, It would be great to have NCQ doing dead code suppression before downloading it to the RCX. Any function, task,... not referenced in the program should not be compiled and sent to the RCX. It would help to save memory and download time don't (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC wishlist
|
|
(...) Implementation of ## gets pretty nasty - at least within the current pre-processor design. I'll look at the C spec again, but I'm pretty sure ## forces a re-tokenization. In the current design of NQC, tokenization happens before (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
