[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: __FUNCTION__
    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?
    String constant coalescing chances. It is a good thing. Anobody who used
    __FUNCTION__ which was
    neither a proper preprocessor constant nor a proper variable
    semantically was in problem.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:15    [W:0.020 / U:4.448 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site