 | | 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 default output file
|
|
(...) Cool, thanks. (25 years ago, 19-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Proposed solution to RcxCC / NQC problem
|
|
This is my proposed solution to the problem with the NQC beta and RcxCC. As a quick recap, the problem is that RcxCC uses an exec line which has one quoted argument ending with a backslash: nqc -E"temp.log" -L"temp.lst" -I"C:\NQC\CC\" temp.nqc The (...) (25 years ago, 18-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: offtopicy sort of thing
|
|
I parallel two motors frequently with no ill effects. There is no generation taking place. It will use more battery current for the two motors than it would for one, but it is also doing more work. -- Bob Fay rfay@we.mediaone.net The Shop (URL) (...) (25 years ago, 18-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: offtopicy sort of thing
|
|
(...) I was just trying out having 4 motors to power 4 wheels (one per wheel) and I saw this effect. I had the two motors on the right side both attached to output A and the two motors on the left side both attached to input C. But now I am worried (...) (25 years ago, 18-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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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)
|
