This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: C++ and gather-detailed-mem-stats
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> On 8/15/12, Gabriel Dos Reis <email@example.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 15, 2012 Richard Guenther <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Michael Matz wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > > > > Prototype below - fire away on bikeshedding names.
> > > > Make it mirror the preprocessor names that people are used to,
> > > > and do away with the _loc_: __builtin_FILE, __builtin_FUNCTION,
> > > > __builtin_LINE.
> > >
> > > Hm, well. The following includes documentation and the old
> > > new names, __builtin_file_location, etc.
> > This looks good too me.
> > A few points to consider:
> > * relation of __builtin_function_location to C99 (and C++11)
> > __func__
> > * Do we want to update libcpp to systematically expand
> > __FILE__ to __builtin_file_location, etc?
> Do you mean just within gcc sources, or in general? I think the
> latter would fail compatibility tests.
> > It general, it might be good to avoid too many ways of spelling
> > the same thing.
> While I'm not excited by the name, __builtin_lazy_FILE has the
> virtue of being clear in the lazy binding of the name.
May it not suggest it applies "very lazy", like after inlining for
example? Anyway, sofar I'd side with Michas suggestion of using
__builtin_FILE, etc. if people agree on adding _lazy that's fine
for me, too.
So far two votes for __builtin_FILE, one for each other option ;)