| |
Eric,
see the thread started by Zhengrong Zhang on 11/5/01 about this.
short: we can't find any compelling reason to hardcode the address. I'm
not sure about Zhengrong, but I've modified my copy of LegOS to support
"dynamic" addresses (i.e. can change address without recompiling) and it's
been working fine for a while now.
You probably wouldn't want to change the address while running a program,
that would be messy. I found it cleaner to make an address-changing program
that uses lnpd on the PC side, and adding an address-changing command to the
brick-side IR signal handler.
-al
Eric Swalens <eric.swalens@easynet.be> wrote in message
news:E16HAfu-0003zm-00@bigglesworth.mail.be.easynet.net...
> Is there a reason to "hardcode" the host address using a define
> (LNP_HOSTADDR)?
>
> Things would be easier for me if I could change the address at run time • (when
> calling lnp_init). Is it safe to replace the defines by a variable?
>
> Eric
>
> --
> web: http://student.ulb.ac.be/~eswalens
>
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: host address
|
| (...) Do you have a patch? (...) I'm writing a compiler (automaton model of the robot to C). With dynamic addresses, it could manage an "addresses pool", and simply add a call to change the address when the program starts... On the other hand, if (...) (23 years ago, 30-Dec-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | LNP: host address
|
| Is there a reason to "hardcode" the host address using a define (LNP_HOSTADDR)? Things would be easier for me if I could change the address at run time (when calling lnp_init). Is it safe to replace the defines by a variable? Eric (23 years ago, 21-Dec-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
3 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
