On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 10:57:18AM +0200, Marc Espie wrote: > On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 05:31:39PM +1000, Jonathan Gray wrote: > > Both gcc and clang have an extension for binary integer constants. > > In gcc's case this has been around since 4.3. > > > > The mesa backend for newer intel parts (i965) assumes this extension > > is present in recent versions. > > > > Below is a diff to add support for this to our in tree gcc4. While the > > i965 backend is only built on gcc4 archs the concern is that abuse > > of this extension in ports or other places may make gcc3/gcc2 archs > > worse off unless similiar patches can be done... > > > > >From > > http://gcc.gnu.org/git/?p=gcc.git;a=patch;h=d7282a2b2cacdf62e80c1f29f06933f38a70d743 > > still under the GPLv2. > > [...] > > + if (radix == 2 && CPP_PEDANTIC (pfile)) > > + cpp_error (pfile, CPP_DL_PEDWARN, > > + "binary constants are a GCC extension"); > > can you check whether more recent gcc also only warn for this in pedantic > mode ?
gcc 4.8.1 from ports only warns with pedantic as well. > > apart from that, looks okay to me too, and like kettenis, it should also > be in gcc3 for consistency... gcc3 diff posted in the reply to kettenis' mail.
