From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19714 invoked by alias); 29 Apr 2004 12:02:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 19683 invoked from network); 29 Apr 2004 12:02:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp2.libero.it) (193.70.192.52) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 29 Apr 2004 12:02:49 -0000 Received: from bagio (151.42.79.124) by smtp2.libero.it (7.0.027-DD01) id 406C2504006BBB5A; Thu, 29 Apr 2004 14:03:19 +0200 Message-ID: <057d01c42de1$e1ed3fd0$174a2597@bagio> From: "Giovanni Bajo" To: "Svein E. Seldal" , References: <4090B26B.4050002@solidas.com> Subject: Re: RFC embedded c proposal Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 12:51:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-04/txt/msg01376.txt.bz2 Svein E. Seldal wrote: > Now, if I were to implement this into GCC, what would be best method > of implementation? Consider: > > a) Add the appropriate _X keywords for the target at hand (which in > this case could be _Progmem, _Flash, _Code or similar) > b) Declare an __attribute__, e.g. __attribute__((progmem)), that will > become a part of the type decleration: Well, there has been discussion in the past on GCC adopting the Embedded C standard. If I were to do this, I would surely go with (a), implementing it under a new language dialect, like -std=embedded-c or something. Doing this with (b) looks like a bad idea in the longer run, as we will have an alternative non-standard syntax to cope with forever. Giovanni Bajo