Re: [avr-gcc-list] gcc binary

[Douglas Dotson]

Portability is hard enough in C without introducing 
additional non-portable constructs. I would encourage
folks to use hex and just get used to it.

Doug

--- Joerg Wunsch <address@hidden> wrote:
> As "E. Weddington" <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> >Worse: its not even a part of the C language. It
> has nothing to do
> >with GCC, or the AVR.
> 
> It seems to be quite common among µC C compilers. 
> Unlike the PORTB.0
> notation where I don't see how this would ever fit
> at all into legal C
> syntax, I can imagine that 0b is a perferctly legal
> vendor extension
> for a compiler.
> 
> Just curious, I've once made a patch for GCC that
> implements it.  This
> was merely intented to be a proof of concept.  Does
> anyone
> incidentally know whether this feature might have
> already been
> proposed (and perhaps put down) to the GCC folks? 
> If not, do people
> feel I should submit that patch?
> 
> In case anyone is interested:
> 
> http://www.sax.de/~joerg/gcc-0b.patch
> 
> (It's IMHO been made against a 3.3 version of GCC,
> not yet against a
> 3.4 one.)
> -- 
> J"org Wunsch                                         Unix support engineer
> address@hidden       
> http://www.interface-systems.de/~j/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> avr-gcc-list mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://www.avr1.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-gcc-list


_______________________________________________
avr-gcc-list mailing list
address@hidden
http://www.avr1.org/mailman/listinfo/avr-gcc-list