 | | Re: sleep efficientcy
|
|
(...) value (...) Ross, I can't speak about efficiency - I dont know enogh about embedded programming, but I've had better results using wait_event. I've tried both msleep() and yield() in a loop, and just calling wait_event with a function that (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | sleep efficientcy
|
|
Hi again, i would like to know which is more efficient in code? having a while loop which is checking for a condition to be true and sleeping for an arbitary value while it is not, or using a wait_event statement passing a function pointer to a (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Parallel sensor problem
|
|
(...) That isn't the problem. I reversed the sensor on one RCX, and they both showed it as being constantly pressed, so that must be the wrong polarity. But I also tried moving it from input 2 to 3. Works fine. Same programs, everything, it works in (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: LegOS 0.2.5 and LNP
|
|
(...) after (...) old (...) That's true. I've noticed it. I was speaking of PC implementation. (...) semaphore (...) in a (...) instruction (...) wait (...) of the (...) shouldn't (...) Ok, perfect. I vote for the semaphore implementation. I also (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: C++ OverHead
|
|
Hi, The answer here depends on your coding style. If you are using non-derived concrete classes, with simple member data and the default constructor/destructor, then it costs ~10-20 bytes/class. If you are using non-derived concrete classes, with (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Motor Speed value interpretation?
|
|
In lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, Rossz Vamos-Wentworth writes: ... (...) hmmm... did your wife figure out what vamos means... you might have to change that one too :-) sorry, but now I don't remember the question about the motor speed (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Motor Speed value interpretation?
|
|
(...) My birth name is actually Ross, but I changed it to Rossz when I married my Hungarian wife. In her language it means 'bad'. :) Rossz (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: C++ OverHead
|
|
(...) Hi, unfortunately I am unable to answer your question, however I am very interested in what you are doing with GA. I recently recieved my RCX and have done GA work in the past as part of my schoolwork. I would love to try using some GAs with (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Parallel sensor problem
|
|
Bernardo Dal Seno <piu1759@cdc8g5.cdc.polimi.it> wrote in message news:87d7dd25ge.fsf@...o.bogus... (...) crane, and (...) RCX 2. (...) like: (...) Thanks. I'll try that. (...) happens (...) connected to (...) Nup. I disconnected the motor, but the (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Parallel sensor problem
|
|
(...) I don't know if this is your problem, but the input ports have polarity (one lead is connected to ground and the other to +5V through a resistor, if I remember correctly). Have you tried to change polarities? (...) Maybe the problem is not in (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: LegOS 0.2.5 and LNP
|
|
(...) On the RCX the LNP handlers are called from an interrupt handler, so after the execution of lnp_*_set_handler() you can safely assume that the old handler will not be called any more. On a PC things are different, there is a problem. I didn't (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: C++ OverHead
|
|
I seem to recall someone doing some testing that showed that C++ programs worked out to take out somewhere around 2 to 3 times the space of comparable C programs. However, I'm sure that varies. Luis (...) ---...--- "Nobody ever said that democracy (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Motor Speed value interpretation?
|
|
(...) As far as I can tell, the speed value really affects power output. This indirectly affects speed, but not in a very happy way. You end up with a wide range of values that give you nearly the same speed, then a very short range that decreases (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | C++ OverHead
|
|
Hi all, a simple question ( I hope) I'm running a small GA on my rcx block , and I'm fairly happy qwith my results so far, it evolves well tot he conditions, however I'd like to try something new <g>... I'm going to try to evolve sub-sumptive (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Parallel sensor problem
|
|
Hi, all. I'm experiencing a strange problem. I'm using two RCXs to control my crane, and I have a single touch sensor connected to input 1 on RCX 1 & input 2 on RCX 2. However, when I run both programs, which both have a wait_event function like: (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Motor Speed value interpretation?
|
|
(...) Greetings! Another Ross!! That's three hangin' around here now!! Well, OK ones a Rossz, but it's close enough! (...) driven (...) have (...) two (...) you (...) hit (...) Well, you could work it out really carefully, but then you've gotta take (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Motor Speed value interpretation?
|
|
Hi all, sorry if this question has been asked before but i was just wondering what the speed values for the motors represent? i have a robot with two motor driven wheels which i would like to be able to make drive in an arc. To do this i have to set (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: LegOS 0.2.5 and LNP
|
|
(...) was like this: (...) you reload (...) PC, as you are (...) thing is to read (...) place of (...) optimize it and (...) what you want (...) attribute. Yes, but I'm not sure what could happen if I change those addresses in the middle of the (...) (24 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: LegOS 0.2.5 and LNP
|
|
(...) Ok. Checking and testing never hurts :-). (...) It's not for performance, but for correctness. The old code was like this: if(lnp_addressing_ha...ler[port]) { ... lnp_addressing_handl...th-2,src); You first test lnp_integrity_handler and then, (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: LegOS 0.2.5 and LNP
|
|
(...) you may see (...) give access (...) the handlers (...) My only (...) depend on. (...) introduce a (...) this point to (...) I think that we can use safely (CONF_TM || defined CONF_HOST) condition. I'm checking the whole patch and I think that (...) (24 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
