On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 02:10:23PM -0600, Thunder from the hill wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, Thunder from the hill wrote:
> > #define __FUNCTION__ __func__
>
> Hmmm... that's just logical. If they just remove the __FUNCTION__
> constant, there's nothing to complain about if we redefine it. Even my
> chaos brain sees that.
What? __FUNCTION__ and __func__ can't be used interchangably. But for
older compilers which lack __func__, you can do:
#define __func__ __FUNCTION__
And provided that __func__ is only used like this:
printk("Something bad happened in %s\n", __func__);
egcs-1.1.2 will be happy, gcc-2.95.x will be happy and gcc-3.x will be
happy and we won't be doing the now 'bad' thing of:
printk("Something bad happened in " __FUNCTION__ "\n");
(And if gcc-3.x ever drops __FUNCTION__, which I have nfc if they will,
we'll be ok still).
-- Tom Rini (TR1265) http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ - 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 15 2002 - 22:00:19 EST