Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 18:14:18 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 18:14:09 -0500 Received: from 12-224-37-81.client.attbi.com ([12.224.37.81]:28174 "HELO kroah.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 18:13:57 -0500 Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 15:11:47 -0800 From: Greg KH To: jtv Cc: Vladimir Kondratiev , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: __FUNCTION__ Message-ID: <20020108231147.GA16313@kroah.com> In-Reply-To: <3C3B664B.3060103@intel.com> <20020108220149.GA15816@kroah.com> <20020108235649.A26154@xs4all.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020108235649.A26154@xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.25i X-Operating-System: Linux 2.2.20 (i586) Reply-By: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 20:57:04 -0800 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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? 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? greg k-h - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/