![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 03:11:47PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 11:56:49PM +0100, jtv wrote: > > > > Don't have a C99 spec, but here's what info gcc has to say about it: > > > > [...description of "function names" extension as currently found in gcc...] > > > > Note that these semantics are deprecated, and that GCC 3.2 will > > handle `__FUNCTION__' and `__PRETTY_FUNCTION__' the same way as > > `__func__'. `__func__' is defined by the ISO standard C99: > > Any reason _why_ they would want to break tons of existing code in this > manner? Just the fact that the __func__ symbol is there to use? > > Since the C99 spec does not state anything about __FUNCTION__, changing > it from the current behavior does not seem like a wise thing to do. > > Any pointers to someone to complain to, or is there no chance for > reversal? Because the want people to stop using a gcc-specific way and start using the C99-mandated way instead?! Very sane imho. /David Weinehall _ _ // David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /> Northern lights wander \\ // Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky // \> http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ </ Full colour fire </ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | |||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:15 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||