 | | Re: NQC 2.0 and some math questions
|
|
On semaphores... There was a lot of discussion a long time ago on whether NQC should use semaphores to protect temp variables between tasks. There isn't an atomic test-and-set bytecode, so the only way I know of implementing sempaphore would be to (...) (25 years ago, 1-Oct-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.0 and some math questions
|
|
(...) I think that if you do something like this you should use a semaphore to secure no tasks access y and z simultanously. But that wastes another variable storing the sema. (25 years ago, 30-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.0 and some math questions
|
|
(...) That's exaclty what I was thinking of doing. Originally, the compiler had no way of allocating temp variables which is why code for % couldn't be emitted. The temp allocator is now pretty good, so I could emit the above sequence, but it just (...) (25 years ago, 30-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.0 and some math questions
|
|
(...) x = y % z is equivalent to (where w is an temporary integer): w = y / z; x = y - z * w; I can't think of a useful use of % just with constants. Ciao. Marco. (25 years ago, 29-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: Listening to IR via NQC
|
|
(...) FWIW, I did something similar to this using NQC and the Datalog. It uses variable0 for polling and letting the PC know the Datalog has some "stuff" it wants to send. (URL) (25 years ago, 28-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
