From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Lpnsm-0006Tq-UK
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2009 14:12:48 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Lpnsh-0006Te-Pg
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2009 14:12:48 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=48522 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Lpnsh-0006Tb-Lb
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2009 14:12:43 -0400
Received: from mo-p00-ob.rzone.de ([81.169.146.160]:63661)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <mail@kevin-wolf.de>) id 1Lpnsh-0003PF-2y
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 03 Apr 2009 14:12:43 -0400
From: Kevin Wolf <mail@kevin-wolf.de>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Introduce module API to QEMU
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 22:12:21 +0200
References: <49D60814.9020703@codemonkey.ws> <49D6480F.2000408@codemonkey.ws>
	<20090403.115843.84364240.imp@bsdimp.com>
In-Reply-To: <20090403.115843.84364240.imp@bsdimp.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200904032212.21900@kevin-wolf.de>
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
Cc: paul@codesourcery.com

Am Freitag, 3. April 2009 19:58 schrieb M. Warner Losh:
> In message: <49D6480F.2000408@codemonkey.ws>
>
>             Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws> writes:
> : 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.
>
> No.  That's not true.  Those are defined by the standard or by the
> implementation.  he's objecting to your using an identifier that
> starts with __ when really, there's no reason to do that.

Except that it wouldn't work with a different name because these symbols are 
ld ("the implementation") magic and don't exist with a different name? I 
actually think this is a quite good reason.

Kevin