Re: RFC: __FUNCTION__ and __PRETTY_FUNCTION__

[Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>]

--On Monday, December 10, 2001 08:30:45 AM +0100 Andreas Jaeger 
<aj@suse.de> wrote:

> Neil Booth <neil@daikokuya.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>> Joseph S. Myers wrote:-
>>
>>> I think we should make them follow the C99 definition of __func__.
>>
>> OK, I'm all for that.  I've had one other vote in favour of consistency
>> with g++.

I think this is a difficult question.  It's clear that the change
Neil and Joseph are in favor of is an improvement from the point of
view of language semantics.  Making __FUNCTION__ behave like __func__
is a good thing; the __func__ semantics are better.  The GCC
simplifications resulting are real and significant.

Neil has proposed deprecating this in GCC 3.0.3 so that we can
then not support it in GCC 3.1.  Deprecating something in a
dot-release is a little dodgy.

Andreas suggested deprecating it in 3.1 and removing it 3.2, which
is definitely less dodgy -- but also means we have to remember this
debate for several more months -- at least until after we branch for
3.1 in February.

There may be others who do not want to break compatibility here at
all.  This is a change that will cause people to have to fiddle with
various assertion macros in their software; the changes aren't too
hard, but there will probably be a lot of changes.

I agree with Andreas, i.e, deprecate this in 3.1, and remove it 3.2.
Therefore, I would pre-approve the patch for the moment that the 3.1
branch is announce, and pre-approve a deprecation patch for both
3.0.3 and 3.1.

--
Mark Mitchell                   mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC               http://www.codesourcery.com