Subject:
|
Re: NQC Ignores based on your pbrink
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc
|
Date:
|
Sun, 9 Apr 2000 01:15:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2047 times
|
| |
|
|
Have you considered adding the firmware build version to that symbol or to a
new one?
__RCX = 2
__FIRMWARE=3.21
This would facilitate creation of portable, work-around code that would
accomodate an end-user who hasn't updated their firmware (or has a reason not
to). It could also be useful in comparing code functionality side-by-side on
two firmware versions.
Dennis
Dave Baum wrote:
> In article <slrn8euqu4.cbl.mattdm@jadzia.bu.edu>, mattdm@mattdm.org
> wrote:
>
> > Dean Husby <nntp@akasa.bc.ca> wrote:
> > > Dave Can you setup NQC to automatically ignore things a pbrink doesn't
> > > understand? For example The scout.
> >
> > Coincidentally, I think someone just posted the answer to your question a
> > few hours ago....
> >
> > <http://www.lugnet.com/robotics/rcx/nqc/?n=525>
>
> Yes, I agree with the approach to using __RCX for conditional compile -
> that's really why its there.
>
> I had thought about adding some of the functions (SetSensor() etc.) as
> no-ops in the Scout API, but this really didn't feel right to me. I
> figured someone could build their own API which no-oped things
> accordingly, but I didn't want to take the official API in this
> direction. Really more of a philisophical thing.
>
> Incidentally, the __RCX symbol is currently either defined or undefined.
> Soon it will be defined to a certain value indicating the firmware level
> of the RCX - for example...
>
> #if __RCX == 1
> // RCX 1.0 firmware (actually 3.09)
> #elif __RCX == 2
> // RCX 2.0 firmware (3.21 or better)
> #endif
>
> Again, in cases where the functionality present in 1.0 and 2.0, the API
> will exist in both. However, new features for 2.0 will have no
> corresponding API in 1.0 builds, so using them (without the appropriate
> conditional compile) will cause an error.
>
> Dave Baum
>
> --
> reply to: dbaum at enteract dot com
--
Dennis Williamson - Certified Y2K Complacent
Bad News: The next millenium starts on a Monday.
Good News: You get the day off.
(remove .NO and SPAM. to reply)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: NQC Ignores based on your pbrink
|
| (...) This first define (__RCX = 2) will happen automatically in NQC when you select RCX 2.0 as the target for compilation. Selecting an RCX 1.0 target will cause the symbol to be defined as 1. (...) I hope I don't have to add a __FIRMWARE symbol... (...) (25 years ago, 9-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: NQC Ignores based on your pbrink
|
| (...) Yes, I agree with the approach to using __RCX for conditional compile - that's really why its there. I had thought about adding some of the functions (SetSensor() etc.) as no-ops in the Scout API, but this really didn't feel right to me. I (...) (25 years ago, 8-Apr-00, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.nqc)
|
10 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
