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

[E. Weddington]

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. :-)