Re: [avr-gcc-list] Code Optimisation question re: volatile

[Joerg Wunsch]

"Svein E. Seldal" <address@hidden> wrote:

>>     pwm_state ^= _b00000011;

> Is this syntax standard C? I've never seen this before...

I guess it's rather a macro...

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.

(Eric included the patch in the GCC that ships with the current
WinAVR.)

-- 
J"org Wunsch                                           Unix support engineer
address@hidden        http://www.interface-systems.de/~j/