Re: __FUNCTION__

Martin Dalecki
2002-01-09T09:17:01Z

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.