Re: [PATCH] kernel.h: Remove ancient __FUNCTION__ hack

[Joe Perches]

On Wed, 2015-02-04 at 14:35 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Feb 2015 14:05:15 -0800 Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-02-04 at 23:01 +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 04 2015, Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2015-02-04 at 21:55 +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> > > >> On Wed, Feb 04 2015, Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >> > On Wed, 2015-02-04 at 10:48 +0100, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> > > >> >> __FUNCTION__ hasn't been treated as a string literal since gcc 3.4, so
> > > >> >> this only helps people who only test-compile using 3.3
> > > >> >> (compiler-gcc3.h barks at anything older than that). Besides, there
> > > >> >> are almost no occurrences of __FUNCTION__ left in the tree.
> > > >> > The remaining  uses of __FUNCTION__ need converting first.
> > > >> Why? __FUNCTION__ is recognized just fine by gcc as an alias for __func__.
> > > > And icc and clang and ...?
> > > clang yes, icc probably (from quick googling). 
> > Cool, but it does seem safer/more conservative to me to
> > convert the last 3 uses before doing this.

[]

>  arch/x86/kernel/hpet.c                       |    2 +-
>  arch/x86/kernel/rtc.c                        |    4 ++--
>  arch/x86/platform/intel-mid/intel_mid_vrtc.c |    2 +-
>  drivers/acpi/acpica/utdebug.c                |    4 ++--
>  drivers/block/xen-blkfront.c                 |    2 +-
>  include/acpi/acoutput.h                      |    6 +++---
>  6 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

Thanks.  I had submitted patches for all the
actual code uses (but not the comments) awhile ago.

trivia about macros vs c99 predefined identifiers below:

> diff -puN include/acpi/acoutput.h~kernelh-remove-ancient-__function__-hack-fix include/acpi/acoutput.h
[]
> @@ -240,7 +240,7 @@
>  /*
>   * If ACPI_GET_FUNCTION_NAME was not defined in the compiler-dependent header,
>   * define it now. This is the case where there the compiler does not support
> - * a __FUNCTION__ macro or equivalent.
> + * a __func__ macro or equivalent.

Do these still make sense?  __func__ isn't a macro.

> @@ -249,12 +249,12 @@
[]
> - * and macros such as __FUNCTION__.
> + * and macros such as __func__.
[]
> -/* Compiler supports __FUNCTION__ (or equivalent) -- Ignore this macro */
> +/* Compiler supports __func__ (or equivalent) -- Ignore this macro */
[]
> diff -puN drivers/acpi/acpica/utdebug.c~kernelh-remove-ancient-__function__-hack-fix drivers/acpi/acpica/utdebug.c

> @@ -111,8 +111,8 @@ void acpi_ut_track_stack_ptr(void)
[]
> - *              This allows compiler macros such as __FUNCTION__ to be used
> - *              with no change to the debug output.
> + *              This allows compiler macros such as __func__ to be used with no
> + *              change to the debug output.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/