Subject:
|
Re: Tasks vs. program slots
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc
|
Date:
|
Fri, 17 Sep 1999 23:55:56 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
mattdm@mattdmSTOPSPAMMERS.org
|
Viewed:
|
2302 times
|
| |
|
|
Dave Baum <dbaum@spambgoneenteract.com> wrote:
> There is no known programmatic way of transferring control from one
> program to another.
This is why it might be nice to get the remote control reverse engineered --
we may discover a way.
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Tasks vs. program slots
|
| (...) The remote control always sends the same sort of packet: d2 xx yy where xxyy is a sixteen bit bit-field indicating what features should be activated: xxyy 0001 Message 1 0002 Message 2 0004 Message 3 0008 Motor A Forward 0010 Motor B Forward (...) (25 years ago, 18-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Tasks vs. program slots
|
| (...) RCX contains 5 programs. Each program can have up to 10 tasks and 8 subroutines. Only one program may run at any given time, multitasking is between tasks in the same program. There is no known programmatic way of transferring control from one (...) (25 years ago, 17-Sep-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
14 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
