 | | NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test
|
|
Major features for 2.1: Scout support fast firmware download switch statement expressions may be used as conditions NQC_OPTIONS variable The downloads (including a README with more detailed info) are at the usual place... (URL) Baum p.s. The ## (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test
|
|
Will this work with the current RcxCC? Or will there be a new version of that to follow soon? -- Mark Rendle Est nunc salvus cessare vester computare Dave Baum <dbaum@spambgoneenteract.com> wrote in message news:dbaum-110100215...act.com... (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test
|
|
(...) Not that I'm complaining or anything :) but is the 'listen' feature I talked about a while ago in the plan for the future? I'll work on making Linux builds today if I have a chance. (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | NQC 2.1 b2 Linux binaries + rpm (was Re: NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test)
|
|
I put up a Linux binary package in tar.gz format + rpm + source in srpm format at: <URL:(URL). I'd appreciate it if folks would look at it and tell me if I've done anything stupid. (Especially in the RPM.) (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test
|
|
(...) :-) Leonard Stiles <lstiles@hotpop.com> (25 years ago, 12-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.1 b2 Linux binaries + rpm (was Re: NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test)
|
|
Dave, a question: I notice that you don't include much documentation with your nqc packages. I'll probably leave the .tar.gz that way, but do you have any objection to me including the (HTML version of the) Programmer's Guide and User Manual in my (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test
|
|
(...) that to (...) I don't see any reason why you wouldn't be able to copy the beta version of NQC on top of the one RcxCC normally invokes. I suspect Mark will update RcxCC shortly after 2.1 becomes final. Dave (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.1 b2 Linux binaries + rpm (was Re: NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test)
|
|
(...) Go right ahead. Dave Baum (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test
|
|
(...) I remember discussing this briefly, but I don't think we ever came up with a final "spec" for the feature. Here are the issues I forsee: 1) The IR tower times out. NQC should probably do something to keep it alive - and that "something" should (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test
|
|
(...) Yes, this is why I'd like someone else to implement this. I just want to use it. *grin* (...) RCX messages is what I'm interested in. It might be reasonable to have several modes. (...) Good question. I don't think this feature is out of line (...) (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 Linux binaries + rpm (was Re: NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test)
|
|
(...) Huh. Which brings me to an interesting conceptual correctness problem with RPM -- you don't have the documentation in .tar.gz format, which is how RPM wants it. So do I cheat and make my own tar.gz containing them, or do I cheat the other way (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test
|
|
I tried it and it doesn't work. Instead of compiling NQC displays his "help" page with the compiler options in the dos box. :-( TZS Dave Baum schrieb in Nachricht ... (...) (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)
|
| |
| | 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
|
|
(...) 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: 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
|
|
(...) the exec (...) The answer isn't pretty.... As near as I can tell (sorry, not much of a Windows expert), the command line gets passed in its entirety to the executable, which then is responsible for parsing it into separate arguments. For the (...) (25 years ago, 15-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test
|
|
(...) Unfortunately, I don't know "official" rules nor did I find a place where to look them up. Nevertheless, I can only think that this whole escaping stuff is not compliant with normal, expected Win32 behavior. The backslash is the standard (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test
|
|
(...) You are wrong. The precedent, naturally, is C, coz NQC, isn't quite, err, C. Backslash _is_ the escaping character in C, even on Windoze. So, to write \a\b\c as a correct C string (yes, even a VC++ one), you have to write "\\a\\b\\c", and if (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test
|
|
(...) I don't deny that this is the way C does it. But nevertheless, when you pass parameters *on the Win command line*, shouldn't you follow the behavior that is de-facto standard (even if "incorrect" from a C view) for *that* OS, irresepective of (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test
|
|
(...) Absolutely! I guess I misunderstood. Cheers, Ben. -- SECURE HOSTING AT THE BUNKER! (URL) grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the first group; (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test
|
|
(...) My test was a program like this: #include <stdio.h> int main(int argc, char**argv) { int i; for(i=0; i<argc; ++i) printf("<%s>\n", argv[i]); } I built it under both Metrowerks and VC++. Then I called the program with various command lines to (...) (25 years ago, 17-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test
|
|
(I didn't have time today to check with VC++ and VB as I intended.) (...) Mhm, I see. This makes sense. The behavior of VC++ still strikes me as odd, but anyway if it's so, then your conclusion is obviously right, I'd say. Uwe (25 years ago, 17-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC 2.1 b2 in beta test
|
|
(...) Its actually an unfortunate side effect of an upgrade to my compiler...for a more detailed explanation see the tread starting here: (URL) Baum (25 years ago, 21-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
