This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [patch/rfc] h8300 Change literal reg numbers to REGNUM macros
- From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>
- To: Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>
- Cc: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 13:55:41 +0100
- Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] h8300 Change literal reg numbers to REGNUM macros
- Organization: ARM Ltd.
- Reply-to: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com
> |> > Hmm, which ANSI C do you mean? C++ style comments are surely valid in
> |> > ANSI C as we know it today.
> |>
> |> c89, the original (which, to the best of my knowledge is the standard GDB
> |> is coded to). C++ style comments didn't become legal in C until c99.
>
> 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
version I could have been talking about any sub-set up to or including the
entire set.
Further, it's general to talk about 'ISO' when referring to c99. I said
'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.