:Matthew Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.

    __FUNCTION__ represents the name of the C procedure you are currently
    in, same as __func__ as far as I can tell.

    You can define macros that use __FUNCTION__ in header files and then
    use them in the C code.  This works just fine, as of around 6 years
    ago (before then __FUNCTION__ in gnu C did not properly resolve when
    used in a macro in a header file).

    I use __FUNCTION__ all the time to implement ASSERT() macros.

                                        Matthew Dillon 
                                        <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to