 | | Re: NQC and rcx2
|
|
(...) I don't know about Lego's plan. As for NQC, there's been hardly any feedback (either positive or negative) on the alpha NQC release. That, plus the fact that I've been quite busy with other projects, has made NQC a fairly low priority since (...) (24 years ago, 22-May-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | RE: Finally able to add asm forth words.
|
|
(...) As they say (with a striaght face in the original C library) "Use the fork, Luke" I hope you didn't find the M4 stuff too much of a brain-bender. I'd be hard pressed to tell you how it works anymore... (...) Ummm, because the original hForth (...) (24 years ago, 22-May-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth)
|
| |
| | Finally able to add asm forth words.
|
|
Yeah!! After lots of reading and study and experimentation and suggestions from Ralph I finally added a new word to the .asm files. It was a simple word. I just cloned DUP under a different name. But it works. Now I am truely turned to the dark (...) (24 years ago, 22-May-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth)
|
| |
| | two compiler questions
|
|
Hey, Markus and everyone else- sorry to be cluttering all of your inboxes like I have today. I have two questions about the compilers: 1) How important is the interrupt patch? What functionality would I be losing if I don't have that patch? 2) What (...) (24 years ago, 21-May-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | RE: pbForth gui
|
|
(...) Hmmm...this is a good alternative, the dialog would then point the user in the right direction, which is the rcxoption.tcl file. I like it. I could even do it when the com port could not be opened... (...) This is wierd. It works just fine on (...) (24 years ago, 21-May-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth)
|
| |
| | one quick thing
|
|
having been forced to look at the homepage for the first time in ages, I note that there are now "drivers for all RCX subsystems." I can't find anything with the temperature sensors, though. Am I correct in this? Or am I not doing a thorough enough (...) (24 years ago, 21-May-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Very strange problems
|
|
(...) Ah, that's all right, happens to the best of us. :) I'll go back to my happy little preemptive world. -- "Our doubts are traitors, and make us lose the good we oft might win by fearing to attempt." - William Shakespeare Mike Ash - (URL), (...) (24 years ago, 21-May-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Very strange problems
|
|
(...) I have not done large-scale "production" work with 0.2.x, really, so I may be vastly incorrect. Ah-hah. The legOS homepage (at least) indicates that you are correct. My fault for scaring people... sorry. Luis ---...--- "Going to California (...) (24 years ago, 21-May-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Very strange problems
|
|
(...) Ack! I knew that it was cooperative in the 0.1.x series, but I had thought it was preemptive in 0.2.x. Drat. Well, I don't think it's a major problem for me, since I call msleep() religiously, but it's something to look into. Thanks. -- "Our (...) (24 years ago, 21-May-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Very strange problems
|
|
(...) Just that it is not pre-emptive. If you don't msleep() at the appropriate places in your code, you'll never go back to the scheduler or the other threads. This can come as a surprise, since you'll only notice it when one thread never executes. (...) (24 years ago, 21-May-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
