Re: [patch/5.2/commit] Zap __func__

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Mon, Jul 15, 2002 at 04:09:35PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >On Mon, Jul 15, 2002 at 12:42:49PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >
> >>Just FYI,
> >>
> >>I've committed this to the 5.2 branch - zap more __func__s.  It's brutal 
> >>but it works :-)
> >>
> >>enjoy,
> >>Andrew
> >
> >
> >>2002-07-15  Andrew Cagney  <ac131313@redhat.com>
> >>
> >>	* dwarf2cfi.c: Replace __func__ with "?func?".
> >
> >
> >Er, hunh?
> >
> >First of all, is there any reason that __FUNCTION__ is not adequately
> >portable?  I think it is.  Second of all, if you're going to remove
> >__func__ you could at least replace it with the name of the function.
> 
> Remember this is a branch and those ``__func__''s were only printed when 
> there was an internal_error() - I don't think anyone is going to notice 
> :-).  The correct clean fix was committed to the mainline a few hours 
> earlier (I looked at back patching it but noticed too many differences).

-           internal_error (__FILE__, __LINE__,
-                           "%s: unknown register rule", __func__);
+           internal_error (__FILE__, __LINE__, "bad switch");

Is there any reason not to leave the error message as it was?  It's
just a matter of "update_context: unknown register rule".  Replacing a
clear internal error with "bad switch" doesn't seem like a good move.

(having an internal_error here is a little shady anyway, it's like
abort()ing on user input)

> As for __FUNCTION__, that isn''t part of ISO C 90.

Yep, you're right.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer