Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 09 Jan 2002 10:05:21 +0100 | From | Martin Dalecki <> | Subject | Re: __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 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/
| |