From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53817) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eCRhz-0007Su-Ie for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 08 Nov 2017 09:52:04 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eCRhy-0007GI-L0 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 08 Nov 2017 09:52:03 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87shdptdf0.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> References: <87efpmccvu.fsf@secure.laptop> <87bmke4cu9.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <51d103e9-8d6b-8c83-dd69-effe997d4813@redhat.com> <87shdptdf0.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> From: Alistair Francis Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 06:51:28 -0800 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 01/46] Replace all occurances of __FUNCTION__ with __func__ List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Markus Armbruster Cc: Eric Blake , Juan Quintela , Stefano Stabellini , Fam Zheng , Qemu-block , Peter Crosthwaite , "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org Developers" , Yongbok Kim , qemu-arm , Gerd Hoffmann , Stefan Hajnoczi , "open list:X86" , Anthony Perard , Alistair Francis , John Snow , Aurelien Jarno On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 11:52 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Eric Blake writes: > >> On 11/07/2017 04:12 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: >>> Juan Quintela writes: >>> >>>> Alistair Francis wrote: >>>>> Replace all occurs of __FUNCTION__ except for the check in checkpatch >>>>> with the non GCC specific __func__. >>>>> >> >>>>> +++ b/audio/audio_int.h >>>>> @@ -253,7 +253,7 @@ static inline int audio_ring_dist (int dst, int src, int len) >>>>> #define AUDIO_STRINGIFY(n) AUDIO_STRINGIFY_(n) >>>>> >>>>> #if defined _MSC_VER || defined __GNUC__ >>>>> -#define AUDIO_FUNC __FUNCTION__ >>>>> +#define AUDIO_FUNC __func__ >>>>> #else >>>>> #define AUDIO_FUNC __FILE__ ":" AUDIO_STRINGIFY (__LINE__) >>>>> #endif >>>> >>>> Unrelated to this patch .... >>>> Do we really support other compilers than msc and gcc? >>> >>> Let me rephrase the question: do we really support compilers that don't >>> understand __func__? The presence of numerous unconditional uses of >>> __func__ in the tree means the answer is no. Let's replace AUDIO_FUNC >>> by plain __func__. >> >> Answered elsewhere in patch 3/46 (where we DO replace AUDIO_FUNC by >> __func__). > > I see. > > Put 03/46 first, so we don't have to mess with AUDIO_FUNC twice? I would really like to avoid that, as the conflicts will be a bit of a mess. The way I see it there will be a lot of churn no matter what, so we don't gain much by swapping the order around. I have a new series ready to send today, so I'm going to send that through as I would like at least some of these patches to make it in 2.11. After that if you think strongly the order should be changed I can change it in the next version. Thanks, Alistair