This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [patch/5.2/commit] Zap __func__
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