Re: __FUNCTION__

[David Weinehall]

On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 03:11:47PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> 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?

Because the want people to stop using a gcc-specific way and start
using the C99-mandated way instead?! Very sane imho.

/David Weinehall
  _                                                                 _
 // David Weinehall <[e-mail]> /> Northern lights wander      \\
//  Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel   //  Dance across the winter sky //
\>  http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/    </   Full colour fire           </