 | | RE: Double echo
|
|
(...) There are no "tasks really, just a big loop that executes a bunch of opcodes...I'm paraphrasing here. The memory waste issue isn't that big a deal. The average distance to a boundary is 128 bytes, right. Say we allocate a 32 element data stack (...) (25 years ago, 28-Oct-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth)
|
| |
| | Re: Double echo
|
|
Hi Ralph, (...) Means that we will have to waste memory a lot... Do you know how the standard LEGO firmware works? Does it allocate stack frame for each task or may be it's not an issue at all? (...) Yes, "4th" was always my favourite. Only question (...) (25 years ago, 28-Oct-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth)
|
| |
| | Re: fast firmware downloader
|
|
(...) I'm willing to cover the DOS port since I'm working on a DOS->RCX comm project already. I already have my HP LX200 doing minimal comm with the RCX with hopes of having it ride alongside as a computational component. -Wes Matchett (25 years ago, 28-Oct-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth)
|
| |
| | Re: fast firmware downloader
|
|
(...) I'll start by pulling the 4x code into the NQC source base. That should make it trivial to build a stand-alone command line based downloader for Win32 (95/nt/98), Linux, Solaris, and Mac 68k/ppc under MPW. We could also get Win3.1 and DOS (...) (25 years ago, 28-Oct-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth)
|
| |
| | RE: Double echo
|
|
(...) Yes, it should. The issue is that you never really know if the stack will blast through the 256 byte boundary, unless HAT checks it. You generally allocate small stacks, so HAT could be modified to FORCE the data stack to start at the boundary (...) (25 years ago, 28-Oct-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth)
|
| |
| | Re: Double echo
|
|
(...) Standalone loader would be nice. (...) Well, the most important, of course, is the stack bug. BTW, what about multitasker? How many cells would you recommend to allocate? Should be it checked by HAT word or not? (...) Sure, I would like to (...) (25 years ago, 27-Oct-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth)
|
| |
| | RE: Double echo
|
|
(...) Yup. Dave tells me he is working on integrating the speedier loader into NQC or even making standalone loaders by themselves... Sergey, which features do you REALLY want/need for the next release. I'm doing the following... 1. ECHO_ON/ECHO_OFF (...) (25 years ago, 27-Oct-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth)
|
| |
| | Re: Double echo
|
|
(...) I also think that standardisation is not a primary goal in our case ;) I still can't see a real necessity to have it as switchable feature, but having these ECHO_ON / ECHO_OFF available it's better then nothing. Would be nice to have them in a (...) (25 years ago, 27-Oct-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth)
|
| |
| | RE: fast firmware downloader
|
|
(...) Count me in. I'm ditching the Tcl interface - it's just too damn goofy! A standard firmware downloader would be great - especially if it ran on all platforms. As far As I know, Dave Baum is the only guy here who has got a downloader for the (...) (25 years ago, 27-Oct-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos, lugnet.robotics.rcx, lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth)
|
| |
| | RE: Double echo
|
|
Sergey wrote: <Discussion of ECHO_ON ECHO_OFF snipped> (...) Personally, this is a BIG advantage. Users who do not have access to Tcl now have to deal with double respose characters. A simple ECHO_OFF at the beginning of their script and they now (...) (25 years ago, 27-Oct-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.pbforth)
|
