[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: __FUNCTION__
    On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 03:11:47PM -0800, 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?
    > 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?

    Because the want people to stop using a gcc-specific way and start
    using the C99-mandated way instead?! Very sane imho.

    /David Weinehall
    _ _
    // David Weinehall <> /> Northern lights wander \\
    // Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky //
    \> </ Full colour fire </
    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:0.022 / U:25.740 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site