 | | Re: Proposal: int program_running() —Ross Crawford
| | | | (...) I've thought about this before but never did anything 8?( I think I'd prefer a macro, thus removing the need for #ifdef. Although you wouldn't want the #ifdef anyway, as you need to call it in the kernel, and #ifdefing it out would be rather (...) (23 years ago, 20-Mar-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Proposal: int program_running() —Joseph Woolley
| | | | | I know it is fairly trivial, but it is a start. I am working on some other things... hopefully to be included either in patch form or in 0.2.6 (if/when it comes about). I like the idea of the inline function best, but will leave that up for debate. (...) (23 years ago, 21-Mar-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Proposal: int program_running() —Joseph Woolley
| | | | | ROSCO, Well, I was wrong about the inline function. I sure am learning a lot these days 8-) I tried it both ways (inline func and macro)... turns out the macro produces less code by about 50 bytes. (that will be the last time I post without trying (...) (23 years ago, 21-Mar-02, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
| | | | | | |
