 | | 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 (...) (24 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 (...) (24 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 (...) (24 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 (...) (24 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 (...) (24 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 (...) (24 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; (...) (24 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 (...) (24 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 (24 years ago, 17-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
