|
|
 | | Re: sleep efficientcy
|
| (...) value (...) There are two issues: 1 do you want to do anything while waiting, 2 how quick do you want to respond to the event. In both cases using an event is better. You can do something else until the event happens (synchronization issuses (...) (24 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
| | | | | 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)
|
|
