Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 23:35:20 -0400 From: "Marty Leisner" <leisner@rochester.rr.com> To: Assar Westerlund <assar@sics.se> Cc: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>, Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, attila <attila@hun.org>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, leisner@rochester.rr.com Subject: Re: __func__ not declared for kernel build (5.0-CURRENT) Message-ID: <200004240335.XAA06306@rochester.rr.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "24 Apr 2000 02:43:28 %2B0200." <5lsnwcqqfj.fsf@assaris.sics.se>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Assar Westerlund <assar@sics.se> writes on 24 Apr 2000 02:43:28 +0200
> Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> writes:
> > obviously missing __FUNCTION__ was added by GCC many years ago,
but it was
> > a while before it's use in defines in header (.h) files was dealt
with
> > properly.
>
> You mean outside a function? What's the proper way of dealing with
that?
>
> > I wish these stupid standards committees would just choose
> > something that people are already using rather then make up new
names!
>
> The problem is that __func__ and __FUNCTION__ are not the same thing.
> And thus it makes sense for them not the use same name.
>
What's different about them?
__func__ was defined in aztec C nearly two decades ago...I really looked
the appearance of a __func__ pseudomacro -- it made lots of stuff much easier
to understand (as opposed to __FILE__/__LINE__) -- but __func__ had to
be handled by the translater, not the preprocessor...
> /assar
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200004240335.XAA06306>