From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Lpnj4-0005s7-SM
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2009 14:02:46 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Lpnj0-0005od-Qq
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2009 14:02:46 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=59575 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Lpnj0-0005oI-Ec
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2009 14:02:42 -0400
Received: from bsdimp.com ([199.45.160.85]:53142 helo=harmony.bsdimp.com)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps
	(TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <imp@bsdimp.com>) id 1Lpniz-00021I-FG
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2009 14:02:41 -0400
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2009 11:59:52 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <20090403.115952.-1581798123.imp@bsdimp.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Introduce module API to QEMU
From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0904032139110.2406@linmac.oyster.ru>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0904032055120.2209@linmac.oyster.ru>
	<49D6480F.2000408@codemonkey.ws>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0904032139110.2406@linmac.oyster.ru>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, av1474@comtv.ru
Cc: paul@codesourcery.com

In message: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0904032139110.2406@linmac.oyster.ru>
            malc <av1474@comtv.ru> writes:
: On Fri, 3 Apr 2009, Anthony Liguori wrote:
: 
: > malc wrote:
: > > You are using _identifier_ whose name violates 7.1.3, full stop, you
: > > can not do that in _any_ context.
: > >   
: > 
: > So then we cannot use __func__ either or __attribute__ by your logic.
: 
: a) __func__ is 6.4.2.2#1
: 
: b) __attribute__ is exactly the implementation defined keyword that
:    6.5.2 31) i referenced earlier describes, so no you can not use
:    that in a portable code and yes you can use it in code that is
:    GCC specific and properly guarded

To back this discussion off a notch on the grumpiness scale...

The objection here is that you don't HAVE to use identifiers starting
with __, and using them is dangerous, so why not just remove the __
from the start and get on with your life?

Warner