 | | 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)
|
| |
| | 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: offtopicy sort of thing
|
|
According to that elementary physics, you are converting power into heat as part of this process. Usually, when downgearing an engine, the intention is to have more power at the slower speed (for better climbing, lifting, etc.). This will not be 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 default output file
|
|
(...) I just added the error check to nqc. I haven't changed the directory yet, though. Using the source directory was strictly from laziness. Assuming there aren't massive objections, I'll switch to using the current directory. Dave Baum (25 years ago, 15-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
|
|
(...) 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: offtopicy sort of thing
|
|
(...) It's offtopic in .nqc, but not in lugnet.robotics in general. (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: offtopicy sort of thing
|
|
I think that's a really good idea. I tried it, and found out that the motor recieving power spins slower than the motor you spin. This is about 4:3. This could be a really good speed reduction technique that doesn't use gears, or you could power (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC default output file
|
|
(...) I don't want the outfile to go where the executable is -- I want it to go to the current working directory. So nqc goes in /usr/local/bin, and I can run it from "binaries" directory on source files that might be located elsewhere (the test.nqc (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
| |
| | Re: NQC default output file
|
|
I don't think it's nonintuitive. I think it makes sense to have the output go to the same directory as the input. That way you can have a directory set up for the executable with only read/execute permissions, and yet have all of your source & (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
