Re: __FUNCTION__

David Weinehall
2002-01-08T23:39:39Z

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 <tao@acc.umu.se> /> Northern lights wander \\
// Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel // Dance across the winter sky //
\> http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ </ Full colour fire </