Re: [avr-gcc-list] efficiency of assigning bits

[Erik Christiansen]

On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:35:46AM +0100, Joerg Wunsch wrote:
> "Christopher X. Candreva" <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > I would say yes -- you are locked into WinAVR, unless it is accepted
> > as a patch.
> 
> Let's see whether it will be accepted.

Jörg,

   It is to be hoped! Given that the assembler accepts the 0b syntax,
perversely blocking access to it in gcc seems not entirely logical. If
the C standard omits explicit mention, then it can always catch up in
time, surely? :-)

   Granted, programmers can mentally transform hexadecimal notation to
explicit bit patterns, but with slightly variable accuracy. When it is
possible to be visually explicit w.r.t. bit position, then that benefit
should not be relinquished lightly, I'd suggest.

   When I started out, octal was the standard. Perhaps we should never
have deviated away from that? ;-)

Regards,
Erik