From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12437 invoked by alias); 15 May 2002 12:57:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 12200 invoked from network); 15 May 2002 12:56:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com) (193.131.176.3) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 May 2002 12:56:44 -0000 Received: by fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com; id NAA29003; Wed, 15 May 2002 13:56:42 +0100 (BST) Received: from unknown(172.16.1.2) by fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com via smap (V5.5) id xma027393; Wed, 15 May 02 13:55:47 +0100 Received: from cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com (cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com [172.16.1.91]) by cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA05062; Wed, 15 May 2002 13:55:41 +0100 (BST) Received: from sun18.cambridge.arm.com (sun18.cambridge.arm.com [172.16.2.18]) by cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA15827; Wed, 15 May 2002 13:55:41 +0100 (BST) Message-Id: <200205151255.NAA15827@cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com> To: Andreas Schwab cc: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Reply-To: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com Organization: ARM Ltd. X-Telephone: +44 1223 400569 (direct+voicemail), +44 1223 400400 (switchbd) X-Fax: +44 1223 400410 X-Address: ARM Ltd., 110 Fulbourn Road, Cherry Hinton, Cambridge CB1 9NJ. X-Url: http://www.arm.com/ Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] h8300 Change literal reg numbers to REGNUM macros In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 15 May 2002 14:48:53 +0200." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 05:57:00 -0000 From: Richard Earnshaw X-SW-Source: 2002-05/txt/msg00596.txt.bz2 > |> > Hmm, which ANSI C do you mean? C++ style comments are surely valid = in > |> > ANSI C as we know it today. > |>=20 > |> c89, the original (which, to the best of my knowledge is the standard = GDB=20 > |> is coded to). C++ style comments didn't become legal in C until c99. >=20 > I know, but you should say that explicitly. Your original statement is > not correct in this form. I dispute that, in the sense that since I didn't explicitly mention a=20 version I could have been talking about any sub-set up to or including the= =20 entire set. Further, it's general to talk about 'ISO' when referring to c99. I said=20 'ANSI', which is usually taken to refer to the original standard. And anyway, the important point here is that GDB is not being coded to c99. R.