Hi, Try the latest compiler here: http://www.casadeyork.com/jalv2/archive/jalv24q3.zip
There are no plans for the GLCD libraries at the moment, and personally I think they need work. My thought is that they need to be better standardized so that the code is all similar to use. Some work has gone into this (there is a glcd_common library now), but there is more that could be done. Other then this, the libs do work well and should be good for your project. What GLCD are you using? Maybe open a new topic for this if you have anything you'd like to discuss. I'll run the jallib validate script on your code after you've made corrections you are able to make. Thanks, Matt. On Monday, October 27, 2014 6:15:11 PM UTC-4, Urmas Joeleht wrote: > > Hi, > > Thank you for your advice. I'll correct those variable names and revision > info. Unfortunately I don't have any computers where I can use python at > the moment, but I will in future. I'm totally agree, that libraries should > meet agreed standards. > > Rob, for this sample I only added couple of lines, the base was made by > you, so taking honour as author seemed too much :). > > I have couple of questions also. So far I am using compiler v. 2.4o. Some > time ago I tried also 2.4.p, but spent lot of time by fixing "correct code" > (that worked fine with 2.4o). If I write library today, with which compiler > version it is best practice to ensure all works fine? > > I have couple of glcd libraries, I will "write clean" and share. I don't > remember where (jallist?) I read, that there is thoughts to make some kind > of changes with glcd library. Unification or smth. When I start cleaning, I > could already make those to accept future plans. Do you know about plans > with glcd? > > Br, > Urmas > ------- > > > esmaspäev, 27. oktoober 2014 20:45.21 UTC+2 kirjutas Sebastien Lelong: > > Hi Rob, > > > On 27 October 2014 16:21, Rob Hamerling <[email protected]> wrote: > > > What type of check is done by bee robot on the samples? > > In the output of buildbot (package.stio) I don't see any compiler > activity, so I think I may assume that the samples aren't compiled by the > bee robot. > > > Buildbot creates an archive according to what's declated in TORELEASE. > Then, once created, it tests it: compilation using embedded compiler. See > Makefile, "bee-check" target: > > bee-check: > > sh check_package.sh distrib/jallib-pack-${VERSION}/lib > distrib/jallib-pack-${VERSION}/sample distrib/jallib-pack-${VERSION} > /compiler/jalv2 > > check_package.sh compiles all samples in archive. > > > Anyway, after I sent my message I realised that compilation is not > relevant in this case, because the bmp085 sample compiles without errors. > It is Jallib validation which complains about the bmp085 library and > sample. So it looks like the bee build doesn't contain a validation either. > > > Indeed, no validation, also because bmp085 isn't in TORELEASE as you > noticed before, it's not part of bee build. > > Hope this is clearer :) > > Cheers > s. > > > > > On 27.10.14 11:31, Sebastien Lelong wrote: > > > > >> Urmas, It's good to see buildbot worked this time. > > > > > > Well that is not so surprising (to me). The 'bee' robot produces only > a download package, it doesn't compile the samples. And the bmp085 > library and sample are not yet in TORELEASE, so these wi > > ... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jallib" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jallib. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
