From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31818 invoked by alias); 25 Mar 2008 20:31:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 31809 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Mar 2008 20:31:00 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:30:33 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8275D98140; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:30:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BD5A9810C; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:30:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JeFmw-0007EL-HW; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:30:30 -0400 Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 21:23:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Marc Khouzam Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com, nickrob@snap.net.nz Subject: Re: Binary numbers starting with 0b Message-ID: <20080325203030.GA27776@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Marc Khouzam , gdb@sources.redhat.com, nickrob@snap.net.nz References: <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA04290FC8@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA04290FC8@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-12-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-03/txt/msg00230.txt.bz2 On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 04:17:44PM -0400, Marc Khouzam wrote: > Hi, > > A couple of months ago it was discussed to add a 0b in front of binary numbers. > > http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2008-01/msg00327.html > > I'm not sure what happened to this. Was it decided against? > Or maybe there was a backwards compatibility concern? I actually am a bit worried > about adding the 0b as not being backwards compatible, although I do think it would > be a nice thing for GDB to accept. No, there was no decision against it. I still think it's a good idea, I just didn't have time to update the parsers. I do not see any compatibility problems. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery