[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:0.125 / U:7.584 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site