 | | 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)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
