 | | Re: NQC vs Spirit communication speed
|
|
(...) Correct - dynamic timing is turned off when predictive is being used (which is the default). Predictive is relatively new, and I wasn't sure which code you started with (or how you ported/used it), so that's why I explained the dynamic timing. (...) (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC vs Spirit communication speed
|
|
hi John, I'm curious to see your "Fakespirit" class. At this moment I only need a limit set of commands, so I send by a couple of simple routines to my serial commport driver (indepent thread). Here is the basic code I use, timing is very a stable (...) (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC vs Spirit communication speed
|
|
(...) I'm using AutoLink.Send for most things. Initially I was always closing the link at the end of each method (which mostly map to the Spirit OCX API). I've made that configurable and at present I'm running with it set to leave the link open. (...) (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC vs Spirit communication speed
|
|
(...) I looked into this a bit more and the poll bytecode (0x12) didn't have a case in the PredictReplyLength() switch. If you add... case 0x12: // poll return 2; then poll will be a lot faster. If you run into other bytecodes that you use a lot, (...) (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC vs Spirit communication speed
|
|
The retry timing for RCX_Link uses a dynamic backoff, which is a good general purpose solution if you're going to be sending lots of packets (like a typical NQC download) and the latency through the serial driver is unknown and/or unpredictable (...) (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | NQC vs Spirit communication speed
|
|
This is more a general RCX communication question, actually. As I mentioned here previously, I've ported the NQC communication code to Delphi for the purposes of modifying RcxCC to not use the Spirit OCX. At present I have a version of RcxCC that (...) (23 years ago, 11-May-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.4 beta test
|
|
(...) Great! Thanks for all your hard work, Dave. - Rik. (23 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.4 beta test
|
|
(...) Sorry, NQC doesn't have anything like that right now, but its a good idea. I'll make sure it gets added before 2.4 goes final. I like __NQC__ taking on a numeric value, and I'd want to leave room for more than 10 minor versions per major (...) (23 years ago, 10-May-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC, what gives the fastest code ?
|
|
Thanks Dave !! That was a very good explanation! In return a problem (and solution) with the serial data transmission (not an NQC error, but you could add it to your documentation). In doing fast data transfer from RCX to PC, there seems to be a (...) (23 years ago, 9-May-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | NQC for PocketPC (Win CE) Arm processor
|
|
I just acquired a 64meg iPaq 3670 for use with Mindstorms and NQC but I haven't been able to find a ARM build of any of the software. Does anyone know of any or can they compile it? (URL) it for the SH3 and MIPS but not for the new generation of (...) (23 years ago, 9-May-01, to lugnet.robotics.palm, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
