 | | 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 (...) (23 years ago, 7-May-01, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
