 | | Re: NQC 2.4 beta test
|
|
Dave, does NQC have version specific #defines? I want to write some code that would compile differently depending on the version of NQC. Something like: #ifndef _NQC24_ ...or... #if (_NQC_ < 24) #include "bitShift.nqh" #endif #ifdef _NQC24_ ...or... (...) (23 years ago, 9-May-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | NQC 2.4 beta test
|
|
NQC 2.4 a1 is in beta test, at the usual place: (URL) some of the constant value restrictions on some operators, added an option for merged source/assembly listings, added the ternary operator, added variable names back into code listings. Dave Baum (23 years ago, 9-May-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC, what gives the fastest code ?
|
|
It has very little to do with C itself - its really a question of compiler optimization. NQC doesn't have any explicit optimization passes, and there is no data flow or variable lifetime analysis, so often the assembly will be a bit inefficient. (...) (23 years ago, 9-May-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | NQC, what gives the fastest code ?
|
|
hi All, I'm not a C-programmer, so maybe I'm asking a (very) stupid question. In searching for the fastest algoritme, I looked into the code generated by NQC (through RCXcc-orginal ;-)). I noticed that when you write your code in basic elementary 2 (...) (23 years ago, 8-May-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: RCXCC or Visual NQC 2001?
|
|
"John Hansen" <JohnBinder@aol.com> wrote in message news:GCtr1y.Fvr@lugnet.com... (...) files (...) I don't know witch of the betas you tried but the only thing you mention above is that Edit menu dissapears, witch there is different opinion about. (...) (23 years ago, 8-May-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: Revisions to RcxCC
|
|
(...) Scout support still has a long way to go in many ways, imho. A lot works but I still haven't implemented correct scout support in several of the dialogs. I've tried the command line option for Scout (/RCX=2) and it definitely works on my (...) (24 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: Revisions to RcxCC
|
|
John, Seems like support for the scout is pretty complete except for the target command line option when compiling a program. I have written some programs that compile clean using nqc, but generate syntax errors for Scout specific commands when (...) (24 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: RCXCC or Visual NQC 2001?
|
|
I have been using John Hansen's revised RCXCC for about a month now and I have to say I have been very pleased with it. I have been especially pleased at how amazingly responsive John has been in responding to my requests and bug reports. I just (...) (24 years ago, 5-May-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: What are Opcodes for ...
|
|
(...) Actually either option will work. The lower case ell (-l) option is a deprecated option, but since I use it myself a lot (out of habit) is hasn't been removed from the source yet. The upper case variant is more powerful since you can (...) (24 years ago, 5-May-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: RCXCC or Visual NQC 2001?
|
|
(...) Okay, that's a good idea ! I made (maybe too hidden) suggestions some time ago and didn't get any respons. For me that was the second time (besides some maybe too difficult questions) I didn't get a respons, the first time was when I directly (...) (24 years ago, 4-May-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
