This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: C++ and gather-detailed-mem-stats
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Lawrence Crowl <crowl@google.com> wrote:
> On 8/15/12, Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net> wrote:
>> On Aug 15, 2012 Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de> 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.
Yes, that is an issue indeed; maybe except for __func__.
>
>> 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.
>
I am leaving that question to you guys :-)
-- Gaby