Re: Bug in manual for gcc-2.95: __FUNCTION__

["Martin v. Loewis" <martin at mira dot isdn dot cs dot tu-berlin dot de>]

> In g++, __FUNCTION__ is a variable, not a string literal.  That change was
> necessary to support templates.

I would add the sentence

In @code{C++}, @code{__FUNCTION__} and @code{__PRETTY_FUNCTION__} are
variables, declared in the same way as @code{__func__}.

With that change, is it ok to install the patch?


I just noticed that there is a number of minor nits, in the behaviour
of gcc compared to the proposed documentation:

a) __func__ is treated the same way as __FUNCTION__ in cc1.  As a
  result, concatenation is supported for __func__, whereas it would be
  ill-formed according to C99.

b) The value of these builtin identifiers is an array with a default
   length of 201. The default is not used when the value is longer
   than that, or when the -Wlarger-than- option is used. As a result,
   the program

#include <stdio.h>

int halloballo()
{
  return sizeof(__FUNCTION__);
}

int main()
{
  printf("%d\n",halloballo());
}

   prints "201" when compiled as a C++ program, but "11" when compiled
   as a C program.

Should these nits be documented, or should they be considered as bugs?

Regards,
Martin