[Bug preprocessor/23479] Implement binary constants with a "0b" prefix

["j at uriah dot heep dot sax dot de" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>]

------- Additional Comments From j at uriah dot heep dot sax dot de  2005-08-19 14:24 -------
(In reply to comment #4)

> The main reason is because adding extensions are bad now adays.  We
> are removing extensions which are not used that much and hard to
> keep working.

OK, I accept that.

But then, I'm still in favour of collecting all ``dangerous''
extension, as suggested by the -Wgcc-extensions option, instead
of suddenly implying a -half-pedantic behaviour which then can
be turned off by a -not-so-pedantic option.  That would IMHO
violate POLA.

> If somehow this gets added to a C standard, then the whole point of
> warning goes away with -std=future, just like long long and C99.

That raises the question: how would one propose adding this extension
to the standard itself?  As I said, a number of (commercial) compilers
implement it as well already right now.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23479