lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: __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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:15    [W:4.732 / U:0.012 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site