lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Jan]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: __FUNCTION__
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?

greg k-h
-
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 13:15    [W:0.160 / U:0.940 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site