From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,
	T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Received: (qmail 5501 invoked from network); 27 Jun 2023 06:31:02 -0000
Received: from 9front.inri.net (168.235.81.73)
  by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 27 Jun 2023 06:31:02 -0000
Received: from wopr.sciops.net ([216.126.196.60]) by 9front; Tue Jun 27 02:27:01 -0400 2023
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sciops.net; s=20210706;
	t=1687847051;
	h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id:
	 to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type:
	 content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding;
	bh=XsxoS3MMZWdarInV2TXyoNyu0SLeUoDDIvdJ/BS1Li4=;
	b=ZdjxXvyv7vHeaJnAgIYPkBW5dD1ayNK7qaudzs18yErfOarC9nRRRmNtaeVU7fesy82JA4
	n+VmdwAKN5eQT2rmAtFZMZdXpuM1++P/HyfuKwz1lRLud/ZzeHwVPiWdhqFEFb6hxxzQ1W
	/gbh6yS0cH5x6FEsCpBWSK+eInK3nV8=
Received: 
	by wopr.sciops.net (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id 0bc27df8 (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305:256:NO)
	for <9front@9front.org>;
	Mon, 26 Jun 2023 23:24:08 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <18FA781AB2A87F172FC323B061448C2A@wopr.sciops.net>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2023 08:26:51 +0200
From: qwx@sciops.net
To: 9front@9front.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-ID: <9front.9front.org>
List-Help: <http://lists.9front.org>
X-Glyph: ➈
X-Bullshit: basic information cache interface 
Subject: [9front] Re: cc: support binary constants and refactor
Reply-To: 9front@9front.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi all,

> Subject: [PATCH] cc: support binary constants and refactor
> 
> 
> C23 now specifies 0[bB] binary constants.
> In adding these cinap found that the bounds
> checking in mpatov() was incorrect, both in
> implementation and concept. So instead lets
> just accumulate the constant value as we lex.

What's the motivation behind adding this?  Are other features from
newer standards considered for inclusion as well?  Is it just for
ports?  Either way, perhaps we should at least update 2c(1) to list
this and other non ANSI stuff that may have been added in the past few
years (noreturn, #pragma once recently).

Thanks,
qwx