 | | When the OS makes the difference
|
|
Yesterday, Sunday 26th March, we had our 4th Italian Legofest. This time our traditional robotic contest was about line following, and 10 peopled compared their ideas, their knowledge and their ability running their robots for maximum speed on a 7m (...) (25 years ago, 27-Mar-00, to lugnet.robotics, lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos) !
|
| |
| | Re: Battery life question
|
|
(...) I measured the RCX consumes about 33mA in ROM or Lego Firmware, around 26.5mA under LegOS (due to the sleep instruction in the idle task), and it will use 0.034mA when turned off. No matter how long you sleep in your task, the RCX will consume (...) (25 years ago, 26-Mar-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Battery life question
|
|
I searched through the archives and couldn't find anything that specifically addressed this question, so I figured I might as well ask. What would the expected battery life of the RCX be while simply sitting in a loop calling sleep with large (...) (25 years ago, 26-Mar-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: memcpy patch for gcc 2.95.2 wanted
|
|
(...) I don't know if Markus would approve, but it might be worthwhile to do this and put it in to CVS so that 0.2.4(?) would be compilable with 2.95.x. Does anyone have the time/skill to do this? Markus? Your two cents? -Luis ###...### Profanity is (...) (25 years ago, 26-Mar-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: memcpy patch for gcc 2.95.2 wanted
|
|
(...) IMHO it is better anyway to use pure assembly files when generating code like memcpy (which is completely in assembly here). Call them memcpy.S, and you won't have the problem of accidentially removing them. With this you can use 'c' style (...) (25 years ago, 26-Mar-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: memcpy patch for gcc 2.95.2 wanted
|
|
(...) Because there were some decisions made as to what "incorrect" macros were and weren't by the egcs/gcc teams. For some time, this made compiling the Linux kernel with the newest egcs a serious problem. (...) Cool. -Luis (...) ###...### (...) (25 years ago, 26-Mar-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: memcpy patch for gcc 2.95.2 wanted
|
|
Les Smithson <lsmithso@hare.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:Fs0v5B.J44@lugnet.com... (...) You saved me the trouble of posting the exact same fix. Thanks. I'm concerned there might be other problems caused by this bug. Fixing this routine treats (...) (25 years ago, 26-Mar-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: memcpy patch for gcc 2.95.2 wanted
|
|
(...) I think the compiler was generating incorrect code. I'm no gcc expert, but the asm macros looked OK to me, and besides, why should the macro work in one compiler version & not the other? FYI, I fixed it by compiling the source to an assembler (...) (25 years ago, 26-Mar-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: memcpy patch for gcc 2.95.2 wanted
|
|
(...) Sorry... I was going to recommend the same thing last night, but got sidetracked (it has been a tough two days to be a Duke basketball fan.) I have a question: from where in the code is the incorrect assembly generated? i.e., could it be (...) (25 years ago, 26-Mar-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: memcpy patch for gcc 2.95.2 wanted
|
|
(...) That was probably me. I don't know anything about GCC asm macros so I wasn't sure if it was a bug in memcpy or a bug in GCC's code generation. I solved the problem by going to egcs-1.1.2 which generates correct code. I was hoping that someone (...) (25 years ago, 26-Mar-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
