 | | Re: Hapless WinNT user
|
|
(...) Here is a suggestion for those who are trying it on NT. (I can't right now- access problems :( In Makefile.common, line 20, add the flag -nostdinc (i.e., line 20 should read "COPT =-O2 -fno-builtin -fomit-frame-pointer -nostdinc"). (...) (25 years ago, 9-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: legOS-0.2.2
|
|
(...) well, i got it and compiled everything using linux 2.2.13 and glibc 2.01. My native compiler is gcc 2.95.1, for cross compiling i built gcc 2.95.2, after applying the rcx-interrupt patch. compiling the dll and makelx utilities was a little (...) (25 years ago, 9-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Hapless WinNT user
|
|
Apparently, standard gcc include files are processed as well. This should never happen, as legOS defines everything on its own. Maybe there's an additional command-line switch for that? -Y or something? Good luck, Luis - I have access to a NT box in (...) (25 years ago, 9-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Hapless WinNT user
|
|
I'm afraid these are the same errors that were reported with 0.2.1. It would appear that it is looking at a very long and convoluted path which happens to include the standard gcc, not just the cross-compiler. But that is just a guess based on a (...) (25 years ago, 8-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Hapless WinNT user
|
|
That's me, trying to use legOS 0.2.2 on WinNT with CygWin. I'm using the same tools that worked for me for legOS 0.1.7. Make complains when it tries to build dll, specifically when it tries to compile loader.c. I get a bunch of redefined symbols and (...) (25 years ago, 8-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | legOS-0.2.2
|
|
Hello, legOS-0.2.2 is out. Generating user programs doesn't require perl anymore, and several bugs have been fixed. Get it at (URL) "Nieder mit den Zitaten!" -Markus L. Noga <markus@noga.de> (25 years ago, 7-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, lugnet.robotics.rcx)
|
| |
| | Re: legOS patches
|
|
Hi Frank, first, let me thank you for your effort! It's only through collaboration that we can keep this system evolving. (...) This looks very well thought out. Originally, I didn't want to reset motors, sensors or networking, because it makes for (...) (25 years ago, 7-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | arbitrary motor code
|
|
Whatever happened to the arbitrary motor code? Lou had given me the impression (ages ago) that there was a solution for 0.2.0, but I don't see it. Is someone still working on it? I can give it a shot if no one else is looking at it... -Luis (...) (25 years ago, 6-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: 0.2.1 API
|
|
That was me. Sorry Luis - I've been outta touch lately. Kevin (...) (25 years ago, 5-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: makelx issues
|
|
According to Luis Villa: (...) I'll post the new version this weekend, then ;-) (...) It will be for convenience only with the new release - all front- and backends are integrated, so it's only Make that needs to know about program locations. (...) (25 years ago, 5-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Networking
|
|
I saw mention of adding UDP support to the legOS Network and was curious if anyone had started work on it. I'd like to start a project where multiple RCXs communicated with each other and could communicate learned information to each other. The (...) (25 years ago, 5-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: makelx issues
|
|
(...) Hmm. Well, I'll put off testing on windows then- I don't have permission (I don't think) to put perl on those boxes. (...) It turns out that just putting the legOS/util in the path did the trick. I had asssumed that was just for convenience, (...) (25 years ago, 5-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: makelx issues
|
|
Hi Luis, (...) I rewrote makelx-back - it's called makelx now, and it doesn't require perl anymore. I just didn't post it yet, as it didn't merit a 0.2.2 release just yet. At least in my eyes. For now, try and insert a line into makelx that prints (...) (25 years ago, 5-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Updating the Web based compilers?
|
|
Would it be possible for any of the very kind people who maintain the LegOS Web Based Compilers be able to update their compilers to the latest 0.2.1 version of LegOS? Dying to try out the new programming features... Dave Chen (25 years ago, 5-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | makelx issues
|
|
I'm trying to use 0.2.1 and having problems- no executables are appearing in the demo/ directory. Stepping through the make, I can see that the .dc1, .dc2, etc. files are being made (whether or not correctly I have no idea.) Running make-lx (...) (25 years ago, 4-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: 0.2.1 API
|
|
Never mind- did it myself. Thanks anyway... -Luis (...) ###...### Profanity is the one language that all programmers understand. -Anonymous ###...### (25 years ago, 4-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | 0.2.1 API
|
|
I seem to remember that someone here installed doxygen and generated a new set of API docs for 0.2.0. Am I correct in that? Or am I smoking something? If that is the case, I'd love to hear from you- a copy would be real nice to re-link from the (...) (25 years ago, 4-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | rcx tools setup
|
|
I have following problem with setting up the rcx tools (the old ones, distributed with legOS-0.1.7): I set up the Makefile.common to properly point to my paths: TOOLPREFIX=/home/eri...tachi-hms- LEGOS_ROOT=/home/eri...gOS-0.1.7/ when I run make I (...) (25 years ago, 4-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: RCX-enhanced egcs
|
|
I just downloaded the new rcx tools, unfotunately the gcc dies (segmentation fault, even if I run the gcc only (with no parameters). any ideas what's going on? does it require glibc2.1? any settings? TIA erik (...) (25 years ago, 4-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | IR
|
|
Hi All. Is there a way to set the IR transmitter to something like 'long range mode'? I would like to have a more powerful beam for proximity detection. I've tried lnp_logical_range(1), doesn't seem to make a difference. The problem is that I don't (...) (25 years ago, 2-Nov-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
