|
|
 | | Re: NQC 2.4 beta test
|
| Dave, does NQC have version specific #defines? I want to write some code that would compile differently depending on the version of NQC. Something like: #ifndef _NQC24_ ...or... #if (_NQC_ < 24) #include "bitShift.nqh" #endif #ifdef _NQC24_ ...or... (...) (23 years ago, 9-May-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | NQC 2.4 beta test
|
| NQC 2.4 a1 is in beta test, at the usual place: (URL) some of the constant value restrictions on some operators, added an option for merged source/assembly listings, added the ternary operator, added variable names back into code listings. Dave Baum (23 years ago, 9-May-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | Re: NQC, what gives the fastest code ?
|
| It has very little to do with C itself - its really a question of compiler optimization. NQC doesn't have any explicit optimization passes, and there is no data flow or variable lifetime analysis, so often the assembly will be a bit inefficient. (...) (23 years ago, 9-May-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | NQC, what gives the fastest code ?
|
| hi All, I'm not a C-programmer, so maybe I'm asking a (very) stupid question. In searching for the fastest algoritme, I looked into the code generated by NQC (through RCXcc-orginal ;-)). I noticed that when you write your code in basic elementary 2 (...) (23 years ago, 8-May-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | Re: RCXCC or Visual NQC 2001?
|
| "John Hansen" <JohnBinder@aol.com> wrote in message news:GCtr1y.Fvr@lugnet.com... (...) files (...) I don't know witch of the betas you tried but the only thing you mention above is that Edit menu dissapears, witch there is different opinion about. (...) (23 years ago, 8-May-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
|
