From: Andrew Morton <akpm@zip.com.au>
To: David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se>
Cc: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>, jtv <jtv@xs4all.nl>,
Vladimir Kondratiev <vladimir.kondratiev@intel.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: __FUNCTION__
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 15:51:02 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3C3B85E6.9634B180@zip.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3C3B664B.3060103@intel.com> <20020108220149.GA15816@kroah.com> <20020108235649.A26154@xs4all.nl> <20020108231147.GA16313@kroah.com>, <20020108231147.GA16313@kroah.com>; from greg@kroah.com on Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 03:11:47PM -0800 <20020109003901.T5235@khan.acc.umu.se>
David Weinehall wrote:
>
> ...
> > 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.
>
They shouldn't take a GNU extension which has been offered
for ten years and suddenly revert it, or unoptionally spit a
warning. But they keep on doing this.
I've had large codebases which compiled just fine five years ago.
But with a current compiler, same codebase produces an *enormous*
number of warnings. There's no switch to turn them off and going
in and changing the code is clearly not an option. The only options
are to:
1: Not use the newer compiler
2: Grotty sed script to gobble the warnings
3: Fix the compiler.
I've done all three :(
-
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-01-08 23:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-01-08 21:36 __FUNCTION__ Vladimir Kondratiev
2002-01-08 21:59 ` __FUNCTION__ Ian S. Nelson
2002-01-08 22:17 ` __FUNCTION__ Greg KH
2002-01-08 23:09 ` __FUNCTION__ Vladimir Kondratiev
2002-01-08 22:01 ` __FUNCTION__ Greg KH
2002-01-08 22:56 ` __FUNCTION__ jtv
2002-01-08 23:11 ` __FUNCTION__ Greg KH
2002-01-08 23:39 ` __FUNCTION__ David Weinehall
2002-01-08 23:51 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2002-01-09 0:04 ` __FUNCTION__ David Weinehall
2002-01-09 0:14 ` __FUNCTION__ Andrew Morton
2002-01-09 0:23 ` __FUNCTION__ Anton Altaparmakov
2002-01-08 23:42 ` __FUNCTION__ jtv
2002-01-09 2:12 ` __FUNCTION__ Richard Henderson
2002-01-09 7:23 ` __FUNCTION__ Greg KH
2002-01-09 7:32 ` __FUNCTION__ Neil Booth
2002-01-09 22:35 ` __FUNCTION__ Richard Henderson
2002-01-09 9:05 ` __FUNCTION__ Martin Dalecki
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3C3B85E6.9634B180@zip.com.au \
--to=akpm@zip.com.au \
--cc=greg@kroah.com \
--cc=jtv@xs4all.nl \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tao@acc.umu.se \
--cc=vladimir.kondratiev@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox