lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateWed, 09 Jan 2002 10:05:21 +0100
FromMartin Dalecki <>
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 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 12:15    [from the cache]
©2003-2008