Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 8 Jan 2002 15:11:47 -0800 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: __FUNCTION__ |
| |
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?
greg k-h - 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/
| |