[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:0.118 / U:4.492 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site