|
|
 | | Re: Memory question
|
| (...) So what your saying is I should split my program into more functions not less, so that the local ints are destroyed and available for re-use. That's a great idea, it's the complete opposite of my question but fulfills my goal perfectly :-). (...) (19 years ago, 13-Dec-05, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | Re: Memory question
|
| (...) Most functions in NQC are in-line functions, so in a sense they probably *are* in main(). One thing I do is place all my initalization code (as much as possible) into inline functions. That way, when the compilier runs through, it can allocate (...) (19 years ago, 13-Dec-05, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | Memory question
|
| Say I had a program that has a very large block of start-up/calibration code that is run once at the top of the program. Does it make any difference if I keep it in the "Main()" task, or put it in a function? I mean from the point of stack space (...) (19 years ago, 13-Dec-05, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
| | | | | Re: avoid messaging
|
| (...) I'd agree that a physical block is the easiest, although there is a software solution. The RCX can not recieve a command while it's transmitting - so if you saturate the transmitter with things to do, it will not be able to "look" for any (...) (19 years ago, 5-Dec-05, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.robolab, lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
| | | | | RE: avoid messaging
|
| Yes, I indeed have an attachment which will act like blockage, but not a full one though. Sounds like this is the fastest and easiest to do. I fully understand the opcodes concept, as I myself wrote compile code before. However, these kids age only (...) (19 years ago, 5-Dec-05, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.robolab, lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
|
