Re: __func__ and C++

[Paul Koning <pkoning at equallogic dot com>]

>>>>> "Nathan" == Nathan Sidwell <nathan@codesourcery.com> writes:

 Nathan> Joe Buck wrote:
 >> On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 11:24:40AM -0700, Matt Austern wrote:
 >> 
 >>> Inside a destructor, __func__ and __FUNCTION__ return "foo", not
 >>> "~foo".  (__PRETTY_FUNCTION__ behaves the way I would expect.)
 >>> 
 >>> Is this behavior intended, or is it a bug?  The gcc manual merely
 >>> says that __func__ is supposed to return the function's name
 >>> without a type signature, and doesn't say what that's supposed to
 >>> mean in the case of special C++ functions.  Since __func__ in C++
 >>> is a gcc extension, none of the language standards provide any
 >>> useful guidance.
 >> 
 >> 
 >> Reading the document, I would expect "without a type signature" to
 >> mean that the string does not include the return type or the
 >> argument types, but I would still expect to see "~foo" rather than
 >> "foo", or "operator==" or similar.  Of course, since it's an
 >> extension, it is arbitrary
 Nathan> should it produce a qualified name? Should it include a
 Nathan> template-id?  Should it return the mangled name? (Our docs
 Nathan> rule out the last, but it is what you want in certain places)

That's what PRETTY_FUNC is for.

 Nathan> IIRC there was a suggestion for some kind of
 Nathan> __QUALIFIED_FUNCTION__ variable.

 Nathan> My thoughts are to leave __func__ alone, and wait for some
 Nathan> kind of standarization. 

Leaving it alone for the most part makes sense. but I see no way to
justify "~foo" being reported as "foo".  That's clearly a bug.

	paul