[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [avr-gcc-list] Code Optimisation question re: volatile
From: |
E. Weddington |
Subject: |
Re: [avr-gcc-list] Code Optimisation question re: volatile |
Date: |
Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:08:49 -0600 |
On 23 Jul 2004 at 17:46, Svein E. Seldal wrote:
> Joerg Wunsch wrote:
> > I've got a patch that implementes 0b binary numbers for GCC (including
> > documentation update, finally :), do you think the GCC folks could be
> > braught to accept such a patch? Many other compiler vendors allow for
> > this extension already, and my reading of the standard didn't show me
> > anything that would make it illegal to provide such an extension.
>
> Yes I believe they would. You (or I :) ) could always try. Usually the
> gcc team is very easy to convince while others you have to really fight.
> If the patch is simple and clean, I guess that this wont be a problem at
> all. This is only about extending gcc's feature and the likeliness to
> introduce regressions/bugs are low.
>
> ( I just remembered that the author of this patch needs an copyright
> assignment with FSF to enable checkin into gcc, regardless of who
> proposes the patch to GCC. Who's the author? )
>
Joerg himself. :-) IIRC, he told me that he's got FSF paperwork in for binutils
and I think for GCC too. But he can tell you that. :-)
Re: [avr-gcc-list] Code Optimisation question re: volatile, E. Weddington, 2004/07/23