https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23479
Tim Turner changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||timturnerc at yahoo dot com
--- Comment
--- Comment #33 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-26 14:38 ---
(In reply to comment #31)
Just mentioning: printf() and std::cout need to be updated if the binary
values
are also to be *output*. Any ideas on how or where that is to be done?
As Joerg pointed out, that is a
--- Comment #31 from samjnaa at gmail dot com 2007-06-25 12:58 ---
Just mentioning: printf() and std::cout need to be updated if the binary values
are also to be *output*. Any ideas on how or where that is to be done?
Thanks.
--
samjnaa at gmail dot com changed:
What
--- Comment #32 from j at uriah dot heep dot sax dot de 2007-06-25 13:38
---
(In reply to comment #31)
Just mentioning: printf() and std::cout need to be updated if the
binary values are also to be *output*. Any ideas on how or where
that is to be done?
That would be a library
--- Comment #29 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-06 23:23
---
Fixed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #30 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-07 00:31 ---
(In reply to comment #29)
Fixed.
I was waiting for updating http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.3/changes.html before
closing, but whatever...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23479
--- Comment #28 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-05 22:25 ---
Subject: Bug 23479
Author: manu
Date: Tue Jun 5 22:25:27 2007
New Revision: 125346
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=125346
Log:
2007-06-05 Joerg Wunsch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PR
--- Comment #27 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-30 17:23 ---
Reminder: this will need an entry in http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.3/changes.html
before closing as FIXED.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23479
--- Comment #26 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-21 18:16 ---
Can someone from GCC confirm me that Joerg Wunsch has a copyright assignment
in-place? If so, I will commit the patch.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23479
--- Comment #25 from eweddington at cso dot atmel dot com 2007-05-20 16:22
---
Subject: RE: Implement binary constants with a 0b
prefix
--- Comment #24 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-05-19 16:21 ---
Joerg,
any news about this? I cannot find the patch in
--- Comment #24 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-05-19 16:21 ---
Joerg,
any news about this? I cannot find the patch in the patch tracker. It seems it
was approved by Mark Mitchell
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-04/msg01495.html
Have you committed it?
--
--- Comment #23 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-04 22:51
---
*** Bug 31476 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #19 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-12 17:31 ---
(In reply to comment #18)
Created an attachment (id=13025)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13025action=view) [edit]
Updated patch, output from svn diff as of 2007-02-07
Joerg, as Andrew said,
--- Comment #20 from j at uriah dot heep dot sax dot de 2007-03-12 19:55
---
(In reply to comment #19)
Joerg, as Andrew said, you need a copyright assignment and you need to submit
the patch to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Patch submitted to list by 2007-02-09, message-id is
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Comment #21 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-03-12 20:15 ---
(In reply to comment #20)
Patch submitted to list by 2007-02-09, message-id is
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've got a copyright assignment on file since 2003-03-19 (date of
confirmation email from Jessica Natale).
What
--- Comment #22 from patchapp at dberlin dot org 2007-03-12 20:40 ---
Subject: Bug number preprocessor/23479
A patch for this bug has been added to the patch tracker.
The mailing list url for the patch is
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-02/msg00810.html
--
--- Comment #18 from j at uriah dot heep dot sax dot de 2007-02-09 12:55
---
Created an attachment (id=13025)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13025action=view)
Updated patch, output from svn diff as of 2007-02-07
--
j at uriah dot heep dot sax dot de changed:
--- Comment #16 from j at uriah dot heep dot sax dot de 2006-12-07 13:24
---
The last update of this has been about a year ago, and talked about it not
being done before GCC 4.1... Now that GCC 4.2 has been branched off, is there
any news on integrating that patch?
There's one
--- Comment #17 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-07 18:32
---
There are two things need for this patch to go forward.
First you need a copyright assignment on file.
Second you need to post the patch to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
--- Comment #15 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-02 17:16
---
All P1 enhancements not targeted towards 4.1, moving to P5.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-02
15:38 ---
*** Bug 23697 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From j at uriah dot heep dot sax dot de 2005-08-19
12:24 ---
Created an attachment (id=9547)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=9547action=view)
Patch to implement binary constants (taken against gcc-4.1-20050813 snapshot)
--
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-19
13:22 ---
Confirmed, note I would actually disable binary constants by default instead of
what the patch currently
does, pedwarns about them. Or maybe pedwarn about them by default with an
option to turn off that
--- Additional Comments From j at uriah dot heep dot sax dot de 2005-08-19
13:57 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Confirmed, note I would actually disable binary constants by default
instead of what the patch currently does, pedwarns about them.
Curious: why?
There are more than two
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-08-19
14:12 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Curious: why?
There are more than two dozen GCC language extensions enabled by
default, most of them would allow GCC to accept a program that will
not be accepted by a
--- Additional Comments From j at uriah dot heep dot sax dot de 2005-08-19
14:24 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
The main reason is because adding extensions are bad now adays. We
are removing extensions which are not used that much and hard to
keep working.
OK, I accept that.
But
--- Additional Comments From fritz dot ganter at gmail dot com 2005-08-19
14:46 ---
I think this is realy a needed feature for mikrocontroller programing. Please
implement it.
Thanks!
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23479
--- Additional Comments From j at uriah dot heep dot sax dot de 2005-08-19
15:18 ---
Additional remark: GAS also recognizes 0bXXX constants.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23479
--- Additional Comments From giovannibajo at libero dot it 2005-08-19
16:28 ---
If there was a voting system in this Bugzilla, I'd vote for this. It's a very
useful feature in embedded programming. I also believe that it could be enabled
by default in GNU C, since it's really easy and
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-08-19
17:28 ---
Subject: Re: New: Implement binary constants with
a 0b prefix
The patch does not document how the types of binary constants are
determined. I suppose the rules are the same as for octal and hexadecimal
--- Additional Comments From j at uriah dot heep dot sax dot de 2005-08-19
18:55 ---
(In reply to comment #9)
Thank you very much for the useful comments.
The patch does not document how the types of binary constants are
determined. I suppose the rules are the same as for octal and
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-08-19
19:10 ---
Subject: Re: Implement binary constants with a 0b
prefix
On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, j at uriah dot heep dot sax dot de wrote:
The patch is missing testcases.
Is there a tutorial anywhere how to run
32 matches
Mail list logo
