 | | LNP problems detected
|
|
A problem appeared when trying to sent the value 16. The LNP protocal makes the folowing string F0011000 I couldnt receive in my computer the final caracter the 0. This can be a problem. Another problem, this one alowed by the protocol is the (...) (24 years ago, 4-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Windows communication to the RCX
|
|
I made a Visual C++ 5.0 application to talk to the RCX. If someone his interested I can give it. My demo sample is a remote controler to a robot with differential drive. I am using WinlegOS and I would like to contribut with this application to new (...) (24 years ago, 4-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | gcc 2.95.2 8?(
|
|
First, I must apologise for posting the wrong URL to my update. It's actually at (URL) 8?/ OK. I bit the bullet & installed egcs 1.1.2 as well. I've confirmed two things: 1. My memcpy/memset update doesn't break under egcs, and 2. gcc 2.95.2 causes (...) (25 years ago, 3-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: 0.2.4 coming?
|
|
(...) I suppose you could call what is in CVS at sourceforge 0.2.4, especially after someone adds in Ross's patches, 0.2.4. The advantage of CVS is that we can now all get /the/ most up-to-date version of legOS. The disadvantage is that what you are (...) (25 years ago, 2-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | 0.2.4 coming?
|
|
is 0.2.4 available yet? any clues? (25 years ago, 2-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Religious wars
|
|
(...) :s/emacs/vi/ Indeed, you asked for it ;) Eddie C. Dost ecd@skynet.be (25 years ago, 2-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: memcpy patch for gcc 2.95.2 wanted
|
|
(...) I've posted an update which includes memcpy.s, memset.s (even though this didn't seem to cause a problem, I thought best to keep things consistent) and Makefile (so it doesn't delete *.s for target clean). Just un-tar it to your $LEGOS_HOME. (...) (25 years ago, 2-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | RE: Religious wars
|
|
(...) Right, and in terminal mode it does still have some advantages over emacs. However, it loses the pulldown menus- which, for the newbie, are the primary advantage. -Luis (...) ---...--- "As an engineer, it's important to look yourself in the (...) (25 years ago, 1-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | RE: Religious wars
|
|
XEmacs is great AND despite what everyone thinks, you DO NOT NEED X to run it. It automatically knows whether to do terminal or X. Ram (...) (URL) for text editors. There aren't many out there that aren't X-based, since those people who prefer (...) (25 years ago, 1-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
| |
| | Re: Religious wars
|
|
Not emacs? And not X based? Oof. That's a tough one. My suggestions, in order. : 1) Fix your X configuration and run X and Xemacs. What card do you run? I may be able to help, or at least know where to point you. And, Xemacs has nice pull-down menus (...) (25 years ago, 1-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
