 | | NQC wish
|
|
Hello, It would be great to have NCQ doing dead code suppression before downloading it to the RCX. Any function, task,... not referenced in the program should not be compiled and sent to the RCX. It would help to save memory and download time don't (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC wishlist
|
|
(...) Implementation of ## gets pretty nasty - at least within the current pre-processor design. I'll look at the C spec again, but I'm pretty sure ## forces a re-tokenization. In the current design of NQC, tokenization happens before (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC wishlist
|
|
(...) Great! (...) Vlad, that's funny. Immediately after seeing Dave's reply, I decided to make such macros myself. But I got disturbed and couldn't do it today anymore. Since you seem to have done it already, I'll just wait to see yours :-) (...) (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC wishlist
|
|
(...) I am sure more people than me are looking forward to that! About the "smaller" integer variables, I have put together a couple of macros that simulate an array of packed "small" integers, any bit size works, but power-of-2 sizes do not waste (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: What should be in the next version of RcxCC
|
|
(...) Thank you Mark for your great tool. Several things could improve Rcx CC. - An indentation of selected lines with Tab or Shift+Tab like in Visual C++ editor. When a lines are selected, Tab inserts tabs at the beginning of the lines, and (...) (25 years ago, 4-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC wishlist
|
|
A switch statment will be added pretty soon. The variable stuff is on hold for the moment. I'm holding off on the booleans until I work out a better strategy for variable allocation and code generation in general. Dave (...) for X-mas), (...) nested (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC wishlist
|
|
(...) Hi Dave, I'm using your wonderful tool since just a week now (bought my first RIS for X-mas), and I am already seriously running out of variables ... :-) So, I think your idea of variable types of less than 16 bits such as booles and shorts is (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: What should be in the next version of RcxCC
|
|
(...) Oops, that's right. I completely overlooked this. Thanks for the hint. So, my previous suggestion is quite pointless. Please ignore it. Sorry. Uwe (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: What should be in the next version of RcxCC
|
|
You can also choose "show code/error listing" under the compile menu to get the variable assignments. Mike Uwe Denzer <Uwe.Denzer@munich.netsurf.de> wrote in message news:386F928E.984386...surf.de... (...) like to (...) up in (...) and I'd (...) (...) (25 years ago, 3-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: What should be in the next version of RcxCC
|
|
(...) After spending another two nights with NQC & RcxCC (:-), another wish came up in my mind quite clearly: I use the "Watching the RCX" tool window quite frequently for debugging, and I'd find it great if it could display the *names* of the (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
