 | | Re: NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test
|
|
(...) The same problem was already present with the b1 (I had asked about it in this newsgroup but got no reply). Also, I don't think it is related to the parameters. I have now checked the exec call of RcxCC with a debugger and found this is the (...) (25 years ago, 14-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test
|
|
(...) Hmmm - the only reason I can think of for this would be if RcxCC is using one of the deprecated options that were removed in 2.1 (-o, -e, and -s which were replaced by -O, -E, and -S). If Mark can confirm which (if any) of these options are (...) (25 years ago, 14-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: offtopicy sort of thing
|
|
(...) It's offtopic in .nqc, but not in lugnet.robotics in general. (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: offtopicy sort of thing
|
|
I think that's a really good idea. I tried it, and found out that the motor recieving power spins slower than the motor you spin. This is about 4:3. This could be a really good speed reduction technique that doesn't use gears, or you could power (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC default output file
|
|
(...) I don't want the outfile to go where the executable is -- I want it to go to the current working directory. So nqc goes in /usr/local/bin, and I can run it from "binaries" directory on source files that might be located elsewhere (the test.nqc (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC default output file
|
|
I don't think it's nonintuitive. I think it makes sense to have the output go to the same directory as the input. That way you can have a directory set up for the executable with only read/execute permissions, and yet have all of your source & (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | NQC default output file
|
|
I was checking to see if NQC already does have an option to spit bytecodes to stdout (-L would work, if rcxcomm would understand the format) and I came across something that seems nonintuitive to me. The default output file is "named the same as the (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test
|
|
(...) If this is done, the compiler should have an option to spit out compiled bytecode on stdout, and the rcxcomm program should have a matching option to accept bytecodes on stdin and send them to the rcx. And then there should be a wrapper that (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test
|
|
(...) I think NQC should be strictly a compiler. It seems like it would be more manageable for both developers and users if the RCX communication pieces were in a separate executable. This change should make NQC completely portable (if there is such (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test
|
|
(...) The beta does not seem to work with RcxCC. All it does is display the parameters for NQC and then exits. No compile. --- DonC donc@cccd.edu (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
