Subject:
|
Re: Rotation sensor bug found
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos
|
Date:
|
Mon, 19 Apr 1999 04:43:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1045 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, Lou Sortman writes:
> Mario Ferrari wrote:
> >
> > > Or, for a more general approach:
> > >
> > > #define MIN(a,b) (a<b?a:b)
> > > #define MAX(a,b) (a>b?a:b)
> > > #define STATE_VALUE(k) ( \
> > > MIN( \
> > > MAX(ds_unscale(k),RANGE_SIZE), \
> > > ds_unscale(1023U)-RANGE_SIZE \
> > > ) \
> > > )
> > > #define STATE_0_VALUE (STATE_VALUE(1023U))
> > > #define STATE_1_VALUE (STATE_VALUE( 833U))
> > > #define STATE_2_VALUE (STATE_VALUE( 405U))
> > > #define STATE_3_VALUE (STATE_VALUE( 623U))
> >
> > This seems wrong to me because sets all the STATE_n_VALUE to k-RANGE_SIZE.
>
> It wouldn't, though. First it gets the maximum of the given value or
> RANGE_SIZE. That is done to prevent a similar overflow at the low end,
> even though, with current values, that won't happen. Then, that value
> is compared against the safe high-end value of 1023U<<6-RANGE_SIZE and
> the mininum is returned. In most cases, you get out exactly what you
> put in.
OK. I was wrong. I should have better analyzed your code... This definitively
prove how long still is my way to get my hands on C :)
BTW, I wrote an e-mail to Markus but got it bounced back.
Mario
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Rotation sensor bug found
|
| (...) It wouldn't, though. First it gets the maximum of the given value or RANGE_SIZE. That is done to prevent a similar overflow at the low end, even though, with current values, that won't happen. Then, that value is compared against the safe (...) (25 years ago, 19-Apr-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
10 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
